283 replies to this topic

[maufman]

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?

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.

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.

I thought I was delusional, so I went back to the stats.

Rubby de la Rosa has pitched a total of 92 innings in AA, mostly in 2010-11. He posted a 2.35 ERA despite walking 4 batters per 9 innings due to an unsustainable BABIP and a ridiculously low HR/FB rate -- and while the latter may be indicative of skill, the former assuredly is not. And yes, DLR posted a 3.64 xFIP in 10 major-league starts prior to his TJ surgery -- which is impressive, but I'm sure we could assemble a list of horrendous major-league pitchers who sustained such a level of performance over a 10-start stretch (particularly with the benefit of being on their first trip around the league, and only being asked to pitch into the 7th inning twice).

That's the sum total of DLR's minor-league experience above A-ball.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm highly optimistic that DLR will fully recover from TJ surgery. I'm much less confident than others that he'll be back to his pre-surgery self in 2013.

I also agree that DLR is an interesting prospect, and a surprisingly good return in a trade that was fundamentally a salary dump.

But I don't get why DLR's scant track record has multiple posters characterizing him a "proven major leaguer," or words of similar import. He is no such thing.

And as I said above, the Dodgers agreed to include DLR in a trade that almost certainly wouldn't have fallen apart if they'd insisted on substituting a different prospect in his place. That concerns me more than a little.

[Rovin Romine]

And as I said above, the Dodgers agreed to include DLR in a trade that almost certainly wouldn't have fallen apart if they'd insisted on substituting a different prospect in his place. That concerns me more than a little.

I think, while a valid concern, this is at best a yellow flag. Money was not the issue for the Dodgers - they seemed to view the trade as their "over the top" push in acquiring Gonzales, who was hitting well and had previous experience/production in a cavernous park, and Beckett who had decent peripherals and who could only benefit from a bigger park and change of league/location. As a plus for the following year they got an excellent defensive left fielder, again, for their bigger park, who can bat leadoff for them.

All of the negatives of these players from the Boston perspective were non-factors or plusses for the Dodgers: salary, perceived attitude issues, etc. In short, the players were more valuable to them then to us - regardless of their actual level of production.

Giving up one of your best pitching prospects for what seems to be a lock for a Sept. appearance, a mid-order at bat, a #2-3 starting pitcher, and a plus bat/speedy lead-off hitter for the following season is reasonable. Additionally, perhaps whatever Punto-Effect that beguiled Ben carried over. . .

Obviously the Dodger glasses are rosy, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the Dodgers weren't deeply interested in the deal.

[Rasputin]

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.

We have a major league rotation. Even if you don't think it's going to be a good one, we have one. WE DON'T HAVE A LINEUP.

I don't understand how this is at all hard to understand. Until you actually sign the players who can hit, signing them is a higher priority.

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.

You understand that Buchholz' ERA after May was 3.87 right? He doesn't need a bounce back season, he just needs to stay healthy.

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

Yeah, a 99 ERA+ is completely not league average.

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.

Of course they are, and so would I, but get the best rotation in the league in here and stick it with six minor league bats and you won't be going anywhere.

[Savin Hillbilly]

We have a major league rotation. Even if you don't think it's going to be a good one, we have one. WE DON'T HAVE A LINEUP.

Well, technically, we do. It's just so obviously inadequate that we don't really want to face the fact that it exists:

Ellsbury cf
Pedroia 2b
WMB 3b
Ortiz dh
Sands 1b
Kalish lf
Salty c
Sweeney rf
Iglesias ss

....with Lavarnway, Nava, Ciriaco and Gomez on the bench.

Note that you can swap in any of those bench players for the corresponding player(s) in the 5-9 slots in the starting lineup, arguably without at all weakening the latter. That's how weak that lineup is.

Is that a bigger problem than having Rubby de la Rosa and Franklin Morales fight for your #5 spot while Zach Stewart is your #7? I think so.

[Rasputin]

Well, technically, we do. It's just so obviously inadequate that we don't really want to face the fact that it exists:

Ellsbury cf
Pedroia 2b
WMB 3b
Ortiz dh
Sands 1b
Kalish lf
Salty c
Sweeney rf
Iglesias ss

....with Lavarnway, Nava, Ciriaco and Gomez on the bench.

Note that you can swap in any of those bench players for the corresponding player(s) in the 5-9 slots in the starting lineup, arguably without at all weakening the latter. That's how weak that lineup is.

Is that a bigger problem than having Rubby de la Rosa and Franklin Morales fight for your #5 spot while Zach Stewart is your #7? I think so.

Ortiz is not under contract, unless there is some new news.

I completely forgot about the wombat.

That you can't differentiate the fourth best hitter from the tenth best is kind of the point.

[lexrageorge]

Ortiz is not under contract, unless there is some new news.

I completely forgot about the wombat.

That you can't differentiate the fourth best hitter from the tenth best is kind of the point.

Ortiz is about to be given a qualifying offer, which means any team signing him will be forfeiting a draft pick. While it's obviously not a done deal that Ortiz returns, there's a better than 50/50 chance he does. So, I think it's reasonable to include him in any 2013 lineup projections.

It's possible that the #9 hitter in that proposed lineup could be differentiated; just not in the way we would want. Which only strengthens your underlying point.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Ortiz is not under contract, unless there is some new news.

True. I was assuming we re-sign him. I wouldn't make that assumption about, say, Ross, but with Papi it feels fairly safe.

[j44thor]

We have a major league rotation. Even if you don't think it's going to be a good one, we have one. WE DON'T HAVE A LINEUP.

I don't understand how this is at all hard to understand. Until you actually sign the players who can hit, signing them is a higher priority.

I'm not sure we really have a competitive rotation but regardless is there a rule somewhere that said the Sox can only address one need at a time?
The premier FA talents this off-season happen to be of the pitching variety unless you think Josh Hamilton can A. stay healthy and B. stay sober in a market such as Boston.

There are plenty of options for the lineup though none of which are too exciting. People may not be enamored with Ross but he just might be the safest bet among FA's. The team can most dramatically improve itself without surrendering ANY assets by improving the pitching staff. Greinke vs. Lackey/Morales is almost certainly a bigger improvement than anything else the team can do short of bringing in Hamilton to play RF.

Given how this season went I would hope the team is looking to improve in as many ways as possible.

[j44thor]

If Greinke did come to Boston I wonder what his SOSH handle would be. Here is a quote from a 2009 interview after winning the Cy Young:

“That’s pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible,” Greinke said.

Then again the mouthbreathing media might drive him to under perform any contract as evidenced from same interview:

“I haven’t really gotten a whole lot of attention from people, which has been nice,” Greinke said. “I hope it doesn’t get that way, where everybody’s like, ‘Oh, hey, Zack, hi,’ and they talk to me a bunch.”

Definitely an interesting read about how Zack thought about the game back in 2009 due in large part to Brian Bannister introducing him to Sabremetrics.

http://www.nytimes.c.../18pitcher.html

[Edelpeddle]

The offense will be easy to deal with. Ortiz is virtually a lock and if we sign a first baseman like LaRoche and a corner outfielder like Ross we'll be right back in the top 10 in runs scored without spending a lot of money. The starting pitching is where we're going to have to devote most of our time and money. Taking a rotation that had a collective ERA over 5.00, returning it's three top starters in innings pitched, and ending up with a quality rotation is going to take a lot more than John Lackey and Rubby De La Rosa.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Taking a rotation that had a collective ERA over 5.00, returning it's three top starters in innings pitched, and ending up with a quality rotation is going to take a lot more than John Lackey and Rubby De La Rosa.

Taking a lineup that had a collective wOBA under .320, returning seven of its nine top hitters in PA, and ending up with a run-scoring machine is going to take a lot more than Adam LaRoche (never mind that we have some evidence that LaRoche is a poor fit for our park and our league, and Washington is, by all accounts, probably going to re-sign him anyway).

I think it's a waste of time to insist that either hitting or pitching is the main thing that needs to improve in 2013. It's clearly both/and. The big question is on which side should we expect the most improvement next year from the people we already have. I think the answer to that is "pitching," and therefore our acquisition needs are more acute on the offensive side. But reasonable people can differ on this.

[Kramerica Industries]

Peavy signs back with the WhiteSox...cross him off your lists. (if he was on it)

https://twitter.com/...399997675012097

[Rasputin]

Taking a lineup that had a collective wOBA under .320, returning seven of its nine top hitters in PA, and ending up with a run-scoring machine is going to take a lot more than Adam LaRoche (never mind that we have some evidence that LaRoche is a poor fit for our park and our league, and Washington is, by all accounts, probably going to re-sign him anyway).

I think it's a waste of time to insist that either hitting or pitching is the main thing that needs to improve in 2013. It's clearly both/and. The big question is on which side should we expect the most improvement next year from the people we already have. I think the answer to that is "pitching," and therefore our acquisition needs are more acute on the offensive side. But reasonable people can differ on this.

I don't really think they can.

What's the best case scenario for an in house first baseman? Mauro Gomez suddenly learns to field? Jerry Sands?

We have a rotation. We don't have a lineup. I don't get how this is even a discussion.

[Edelpeddle]

We have a lineup two players removed from

Taking a lineup that had a collective wOBA under .320, returning seven of its nine top hitters in PA, and ending up with a run-scoring machine is going to take a lot more than Adam LaRoche (never mind that we have some evidence that LaRoche is a poor fit for our park and our league, and Washington is, by all accounts, probably going to re-sign him anyway).

I think it's a waste of time to insist that either hitting or pitching is the main thing that needs to improve in 2013. It's clearly both/and. The big question is on which side should we expect the most improvement next year from the people we already have. I think the answer to that is "pitching," and therefore our acquisition needs are more acute on the offensive side. But reasonable people can differ on this.

I agree that it's a waste of time to argue over whether our lineup or rotation is worse off, they're both currently in pretty bad shape.

I don't really think they can.

What's the best case scenario for an in house first baseman? Mauro Gomez suddenly learns to field? Jerry Sands?

We have a rotation. We don't have a lineup. I don't get how this is even a discussion.

Because the rotation we have is terrible.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Because the rotation we have is terrible.

The rotation we had in 2012 was pretty terrible. That doesn't necessarily mean the rotation we have will be terrible in 2013, even if we don't add anybody new. Some of the names will be different, and some (all?) of the people with the same names are very likely to perform differently.

For the record, I'm in favor of acquiring an extra pitcher to fill out the upper half of the rotation, preferably by FA since there are good options there, as long as the prices are reasonable. But I also think it's easy to exaggerate the extent of the problem.

[Rasputin]

Because the rotation we have is terrible.

How the hell do you say that with a straight face?

Jon Lester has one bad season (an ERA+ all the way down to 90) and he's terrible?

Clay Buchholz struggles a little as he comes back from a back injury (ERA+ of 95) and he's terrible?

Felix Doubront struggles a little at the end of the most promising season by a rookie pitcher we've seen in a long time and he's terrible?

I don't know what's worse, the absurd notion that one bad season means a guy is completely done or the sense of entitlement that suggests anyone who isn't totally awesome is terrible.

[Edelpeddle]

How the hell do you say that with a straight face?

Jon Lester has one bad season (an ERA+ all the way down to 90) and he's terrible?

Clay Buchholz struggles a little as he comes back from a back injury (ERA+ of 95) and he's terrible?

Felix Doubront struggles a little at the end of the most promising season by a rookie pitcher we've seen in a long time and he's terrible?

I don't know what's worse, the absurd notion that one bad season means a guy is completely done or the sense of entitlement that suggests anyone who isn't totally awesome is terrible.

Please don't try to pull that straw man stuff with me. No one has suggested that Lester is questionable because of one bad year, that Buchholz is questionable because he struggled to come off an injury or that Doubront is questionable because of his second half struggles.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Red Sox had one of the worst rotations in baseball last year. Not one player had an ERA+ of 100 or better. That's not saying they don't have the potential to have a good staff, they do, but they've got a lot of question marks and its fair to worry about bringing back the same guys (with Lackey) and expecting them to be that much better. The range in potential performance from these guys is pretty wide; just thinking they all suddenly turn it around sounds naively optimistic.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Please don't try to pull that straw man stuff with me. No one has suggested that Lester is questionable because of one bad year, that Buchholz is questionable because he struggled to come off an injury or that Doubront is questionable because of his second half struggles.

Then what are you suggesting? That's 3/5 of the rotation, which you called "terrible." If they're not even questionable, just how horrific do Lackey and Morales/de la Rosa have to be in order to make the rotation, as a whole, terrible?

Let's have some balance. Of course Lester and Buchholz are questionable. They're both coming off their worst seasons in a while (though the story arc of Buchholz's 2012 puts an asterisk on that statement for him).

Doubront is questionable in the sense that all young pitchers at his stage are. But for a first full season from a LHP in the AL East, his 2012 was just fine, and it's entirely reasonable to expect him to get better.

Lackey is questionable for obvious reasons. Morales and de la Rosa, for different ones.

So if you had called the rotation "questionable" I don't think you'd be getting much pushback at all. It is exactly that. But the starting lineup is worse than questionable. It has two or three great, gaping holes in it. Our 1B situation is the equivalent of having Zach Stewart as our presumptive 5th starter.

[Edelpeddle]

Then what are you suggesting? That's 3/5 of the rotation, which you called "terrible." If they're not even questionable, just how horrific do Lackey and Morales/de la Rosa have to be in order to make the rotation, as a whole, terrible?

Let's have some balance. Of course Lester and Buchholz are questionable. They're both coming off their worst seasons in a while (though the story arc of Buchholz's 2012 puts an asterisk on that statement for him).

Doubront is questionable in the sense that all young pitchers at his stage are. But for a first full season from a LHP in the AL East, his 2012 was just fine, and it's entirely reasonable to expect him to get better.

Lackey is questionable for obvious reasons. Morales and de la Rosa, for different ones.

So if you had called the rotation "questionable" I don't think you'd be getting much pushback at all. It is exactly that. But the starting lineup is worse than questionable. It has two or three great, gaping holes in it. Our 1B situation is the equivalent of having Zach Stewart as our presumptive 5th starter.

I had already explained briefly why I thought Lester, Buchholz and Doubront were questionable and I never once stated the reasons that Rasputin said to try to dumb down my argument.

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.

I don't think I have to explain why John Lackey's questionable. It has nothing to do with his attitude and everything to do with the fact that he's been a below league average starter since 2009, and he'll be coming off an injury and will likely be rusty. Players may eventualy gain velocity in some cases from Tommy John Surgery, but it's not like they come back with a bionic arm, it takes them a year and a half at least in most cases to get back to the pitcher they were before the surgery.

And that leaves us with Rubby De La Rosa. He's also coming off of surgery, he's had 10 major league starts in his career, he's walked a better every 2 innings above the Single-A level and he only has two quality pitches. Not to mention, using him as a starter would mean a huge increase in his innings. He looks like a bullpen guy to me.

Didn't we go through this last year when we thought it was just a down month for Lester, Beckett and Buchholz would be healthier and we thought another hard throwing righty with two quality pitches would anchor our rotation?

Edited by Edelpeddle, 30 October 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Rasputin]

Please don't try to pull that straw man stuff with me. No one has suggested that Lester is questionable because of one bad year, that Buchholz is questionable because he struggled to come off an injury or that Doubront is questionable because of his second half struggles.

So the assertion that the Sox rotation is terrible is based on the fact that John Lackey was terrible in a season before having Tommy John surgery and the uncertainty about the fifth spot?

[Edelpeddle]

So the assertion that the Sox rotation is terrible is based on the fact that John Lackey was terrible in a season before having Tommy John surgery and the uncertainty about the fifth spot?

I've stated twice why I thought Lester, Buchholz and Doubront were question marks and twice you've ignored what I said and tried to pull this straw man stuff. Do you want to have a serious baseball discussion or a pissing contest? If it's the latter, just let me know so I can duck out.

[Rasputin]

The Red Sox had one of the worst rotations in baseball last year. Not one player had an ERA+ of 100 or better. That's not saying they don't have the potential to have a good staff, they do, but they've got a lot of question marks and its fair to worry about bringing back the same guys (with Lackey) and expecting them to be that much better. The range in potential performance from these guys is pretty wide; just thinking they all suddenly turn it around sounds naively optimistic.

Again, "turn it around" is framing the issue to suggest that the pitchers are on a downward trajectory. This does not reflect reality.

I had already explained briefly why I thought Lester, Buchholz and Doubront were questionable and I never once stated the reasons that Rasputin said to try to dumb down my argument.

I don't know what this sentence is trying to say but you should understand that there's a big difference between "questionable" and "terrible." "Questionable" is probably justifiable. "Terrible" is not.

The Sox are more likely to have five starters with an ERA+ over 100 than none. (Neither is particularly likely.)

I don't think I have to explain why John Lackey's questionable. It has nothing to do with his attitude and everything to do with the fact that he's been a below league average starter since 2009

Do you understand why saying this is intellectually dishonest, or do you not understand that there is no real difference between an ERA+ of 100 and one of 99?

[Rasputin]

I've stated twice why I thought Lester, Buchholz and Doubront were question marks and twice you've ignored what I said and tried to pull this straw man stuff. Do you want to have a serious baseball discussion or a pissing contest? If it's the latter, just let me know so I can duck out.

Yeah, there's no point in continuing.

You said the rotation is terrible. You seem to be refusing to justify that, and since that's the whole crux of the discussion, there's not really any discussion.

Lester is likely to be a very good pitcher in 2013.

Buchholz is likely to be a very good pitcher in 2013.

Doubront will probably be better.

Lackey is probably going to have some readjustment and be at least decent once that's done.

The likelihood of all of those things happening is relatively small. How small? I dunno. I just know I'd like to bring in someone else so we don't have to try to pitch DLR thirty-five times.

[Edelpeddle]

I don't know what this sentence is trying to say but you should understand that there's a big difference between "questionable" and "terrible." "Questionable" is probably justifiable. "Terrible" is not.

The Sox are more likely to have five starters with an ERA+ over 100 than none. (Neither is particularly likely.)



Do you understand why saying this is intellectually dishonest, or do you not understand that there is no real difference between an ERA+ of 100 and one of 99?

We tried this formula last year with our rotation. Doing nothing and expecting bounceback seasons from most of your rotation isn't a formula for success. If we went in to this season, honestly how do you think these starters would perform and who would be the sixth, seventh, and eighth starters making a fifth of the teams starts?

I did not say that Lester or Buchholz were terrible, I said the rotation as a whole is. Let's be honest here about what we have in Doubront, Lackey and De La Rosa. Doubront showed good stuff at times, but he was also safely below average. He allowed more hits than innings pitched, he walked a ton of batters, he gave up a lot of home runs, and his BABIP suggests even his 4.86 ERA was somewhat lucky. His BABIP was .042 points lower than it should have been given his line drive rate. I hope he improves, but I wouldn't bank on it by making him our 3rd starter.

An ERA+ below 100 is by definition below league average, I'm not sure why you're trying to bend the numbers here when in reality it doesn't matter if he had an average season three years ago. We're talking about 2013. The truth is he's never done well against AL East competition, hes always struggled in Fenway Park, he hasn't been an effective starter for multiple seasons and he's coming off a major injury.

De La Rosa is unproven and also coming off a major injury.

[Rasputin]

We tried this formula last year with our rotation.

Playing the players you have under contract isn't a formula.

Doing nothing and expecting bounceback seasons from most of your rotation isn't a formula for success.

See above. Also, the options are what again? Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and Lackey are going to be in the rotation unless you do some very serious rearranging that is probably more likely to be a long term detriment than benefit.

If we went in to this season, honestly how do you think these starters would perform and who would be the sixth, seventh, and eighth starters making a fifth of the teams starts?

I believe I answered most of this in a previous post. Right now Morales and Aceves would be six and seven. I'd like to get another guy so we can move DLR, Morales, and Aceves all down a spot.

What's this got to do with your assertion that the rotation is terrible?

[j44thor]

See above. Also, the options are what again? Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, and Lackey are going to be in the rotation unless you do some very serious rearranging that is probably more likely to be a long term detriment than benefit.

What??? How is replacing Lackey or at the very least bringing in serious competition for his spot in the rotation possibly a long term detriment? He is going to suck next year and isn't getting any younger. I'm fairly certain that everyone that was penciling Dice-K in for a "bounce back" season are now the people expecting the same from Lackey this season. It doesn't work that way. The floor for Lackey currently looks like the NY Subway system and his ceiling is at best league average. I'd rather not have the ghost of Aaron Cook making starts in July-September next season for us which is why it is imperative for the Sox to aggressively improve the rotation.

Beyond Lackey there has to be serious injury consideration given for Dubront this season. He absolutely deserves a spot in the rotation but history isn't kind to young pitchers that DOUBLE there IP from one season to the next. Ideally they have someone better than Zach Stewart ready to step in if he does suffer a setback which I would put at even money to him having an improved 2nd season.

I'm very much in the camp that Lester turns back into a solid #1 non-Ace caliber starter and Clay should be a capable #2. After that I don't know what other pitcher can possibly be penciled in for 180 league average innings with any degree of confidence and to compete you need at least 2 if not 3 more depending on options at AAA.

The sox have the opportunity to add at least 1 if not 2 arms that fit that profile at a net zero prospect/draft pick cost and have plenty of resources available to make that happen.

The same building blocks aren't available at net zero cost for the lineup though there will be ample options near league average to fill out the lineup. Sure we will look closer to the Rays/O's for a season on offense but with the right pitching staff that can still be a playoff caliber team.

Edited by j44thor, 31 October 2012 - 06:59 AM.

[OttoC]

From 2008, when he became a full-time starter, through 2011, Lester had an ERA+ of 134. That puts him 10th on the list of pitchers (94) from both leagues who made at least 80 starts during that period. In other words, prior to the 2012 season he was one of he best starters in the major leagues. Was his performance from September 2011 through the 2012 season simply part of the general malaise of the team or are there physical issues? If there are no physical problems, then I expect him to rebound to 2008-11 levels.

While Buchholz had some good luck in games in 2012 when he got wins in games in which he did not pitch well (game scores: 27,36,36,40), he had more bad luck, getting no decisions or losses in games he pitched well (losses: 55.58.58; no decisions: 58,63,63,63,71,71). I think that he sometimes gets preoccupied with runners on first in close situations and worrying about them distracts him from pitching up to par. Maybe Farrell and the new pitching coach can get him settled.

From 1980 through 2012, pitchers with game scores of...had a winning percentage of...in those games

GS	 WP
---------
75   .916
71   .889
63   .799
58   .688
55   .618
50   .510
49   .477
45   .368
40   .241
30   .063
20   .014

Say what you want about Game Scores but the above data fits a 3rd-order polynomial very well: R-square = .9943.

[The Gray Eagle]

Time is running out to trade for Dan Haren.

The Angels have until Friday to pick up or decline his option, and they are looking at trying to trade him. This Fangraphs article talks about how they would be willing to send $3.5 million along with him in exchange for not much, but the Red Sox are one team that wouldn't need that money attached. Smaller market teams presumably would want the Angels to pay that. That is something we could turn to our advantage to pick up Haren on a one-year $15.5 million contract for his age 32 season.

That seems like a perfect situation for us. If we wait until the option is declined, then he will be a free agent and will get a 3 or 4 year deal for ages 32-35 that will cost something like maybe $12 million to $14 million a year, and to sign him, we'd need to beat out all other interested teams. He could decide he wanted to stay on the West Coast or play somewhere he likes better if we didn't really pony up for him. With a trade, he'd be ours for one year, and we'd have the chance to either re-sign him or make a qualifying offer after 2013.

From the Fangraphs article: "The unknown about 2012 was just how long Haren was pitching in pain. For the first time in his career, Haren spent time on the disabled list with a lower back strain. He finally revealed the injury to the club after he was torched between June 9 and July 3, giving up 26 earned runs over 27 innings pitched and surrendering nine home runs, striking out just 18 batters.
When he returned on July 22, Haren saw far better results. Over his final 13 starts, Haren posted a 3.58 ERA, giving up 68 hits over 73 innings pitched, holding opposing batters to a .243/.282/.432 line. This looked a heck of a lot more like the guy that held opponents to a .235/.265/.365 slash line in 2011.
In fact, if you look at his monthly FIP in 2012, it’s not hard to see where he might have been pitching hurt."

Here's a piece on the Sox and Haren from McPherson from the ProJo. This seems like something we need to move on ASAP, IMO picking him up in a trade would be a great start to the offseason.

[Sprowl]

From the Fangraphs article: "The unknown about 2012 was just how long Haren was pitching in pain. For the first time in his career, Haren spent time on the disabled list with a lower back strain. He finally revealed the injury to the club after he was torched between June 9 and July 3, giving up 26 earned runs over 27 innings pitched and surrendering nine home runs, striking out just 18 batters.
When he returned on July 22, Haren saw far better results. Over his final 13 starts, Haren posted a 3.58 ERA, giving up 68 hits over 73 innings pitched, holding opposing batters to a .243/.282/.432 line. This looked a heck of a lot more like the guy that held opponents to a .235/.265/.365 slash line in 2011.
In fact, if you look at his monthly FIP in 2012, it’s not hard to see where he might have been pitching hurt."

I love Haren's command of the splitter and slider, but his velocity loss on the fastball gives me pause. There's nothing in the chart below to indicate that he was pitching any less hurt after he came off the disabled list. His fastball is now in Foulke-Okajima territory.

[j44thor]

Don't see where Haren is a fit. This team should be focused on pitchers that can help them over the next 3+ yrs not just next year. Plus from the same article is this red flag:

If there is a smoking gun, it’s pretty obviously his velocity. Haren has never been a fireballer, but where he used to live in the 90-91 range, he’s now sitting at 88.5 mph. His cut fastball used to be 86-87 mph and in 2012, it averaged 84.5. His splitter went from 86 to 84. One might be able to get away with such a decline in velocity if they had other pitches to lean on, but those three pitches combined make up roughly 90% of his repertoire. There’s not much else to go to.

Seems like little to gain for a team that likely isn't a pitcher away from contending. Haren on a 1yr deal would have been a great choice last off-season.

A more interesting FA pitcher might be Joakim Soria who's option was just declined by KC. Coming off TJ but at age 28 he should have a significant shelf life and was a top tier reliever for 4+ yrs prior to TJ so no reason to think that he couldn't be a bullpen ace again.

While the Sox pen is not a priority I think the Sox really need to focus on collecting as much talent <30 as possible and he would certainly fit the bill.

[maufman]

Don't see where Haren is a fit. This team should be focused on pitchers that can help them over the next 3+ yrs not just next year. Plus from the same article is this red flag:

Seems like little to gain for a team that likely isn't a pitcher away from contending. Haren on a 1yr deal would have been a great choice last off-season.

The Sox have one open rotation spot -- Lester/Buchholz/Doubront/Lackey are presumably guaranteed spots if healthy

The main advantage in signing Haren is that you fill the open spot with a guy who has upside, without rushing DLR and without making a long-term commitment. Normally, the Sox can't get SPs to sign one-year "make good" contracts because of their home ballpark, so trading a token asset for the right to overpay Haren for one year presents an opportunity not available to the Sox. I agree it's not optimal, but the alternatives are to roll the dice on DLR (or Morales, if you think he's more useful in the rotation than in the pen), sign a big-time free agent to a multi-year deal, or bring in a bunch of retreads to compete for the spot.

If you think that one of the better FA pitching options (Greinke, Sanchez, maybe Jackson) will slip through the cracks, then I agree that signing someone who can help in 2014 and beyond is the way to go. But if you accept the CW that the new TV deal is going to drive up free-agent prices this winter, Haren is probably the least bad option.

A more interesting FA pitcher might be Joakim Soria who's option was just declined by KC. Coming off TJ but at age 28 he should have a significant shelf life and was a top tier reliever for 4+ yrs prior to TJ so no reason to think that he couldn't be a bullpen ace again.

While the Sox pen is not a priority I think the Sox really need to focus on collecting as much talent <30 as possible and he would certainly fit the bill.

It's Soria's 2nd TJ surgery, and considering he went under the knife in April, I wouldn't expect him back until somewhere around midseason. And he's got five years of service under his belt, so he'll be a free agent after 2013 unless you give him a multi-year deal. Seems like a good gamble for a team that has fewer needs than the Sox.

Edited by maufman, 31 October 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Rovin Romine]

Time is running out to trade for Dan Haren.

To echo j44thor, I think there's a fundamental divide between short and long term investment, or more specifically the 2013 season v. the 2014-16 seasons. The sox have a lot of great cost controlled prospects coming up, and one year show me deals (or in this case, a traded contract year) makes sense to occupy slots we expect prospects will take over.

Thing is, we have 6 potential starters now: Buchholz, Lester, Lackey, Doubront, DeLaRosa, and Morales. Why do we want any one of these (or our 7-9 SP options) in the minors or in long relief so that Haren hopefully have a good 2013 and go into free agency?

As a quasi-final piece, Haren looks like a good risk for a starter. But we're a long way from quasi final pieces.

[maufman]

To echo j44thor, I think there's a fundamental divide between short and long term investment, or more specifically the 2013 season v. the 2014-16 seasons. The sox have a lot of great cost controlled prospects coming up, and one year show me deals (or in this case, a traded contract year) makes sense to occupy slots we expect prospects will take over.

Thing is, we have 6 potential starters now: Buchholz, Lester, Lackey, Doubront, DeLaRosa, and Morales. Why do we want any one of these (or our 7-9 SP options) in the minors or in long relief so that Haren hopefully have a good 2013 and go into free agency?

As a quasi-final piece, Haren looks like a good risk for a starter. But we're a long way from quasi final pieces.

I think Morales belongs in the 'pen, and DLR should begin the season in Pawtucket.

If you think one of those guys is your 5th starter, then of course you'll just load up with something like last year's Cook/Padilla/Silva pu pu platter for depth and consider the starting pitching settled.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

To echo j44thor, I think there's a fundamental divide between short and long term investment, or more specifically the 2013 season v. the 2014-16 seasons. The sox have a lot of great cost controlled prospects coming up, and one year show me deals (or in this case, a traded contract year) makes sense to occupy slots we expect prospects will take over.

Thing is, we have 6 potential starters now: Buchholz, Lester, Lackey, Doubront, DeLaRosa, and Morales. Why do we want any one of these (or our 7-9 SP options) in the minors or in long relief so that Haren hopefully have a good 2013 and go into free agency?

As a quasi-final piece, Haren looks like a good risk for a starter. But we're a long way from quasi final pieces.

Only one of those can go to the minors (De La Rosa) and he's no lock to make the MLB rotation at this point anyway. In fact, it's probably best to plan for him to start the season in Pawtucket regardless. Acquiring someone like Haren allows them to do that and give him more time to develop and force his way into the big league rotation. It also serves as insurance against one of or both Lackey and Morales not being effective coming out of Ft Myers. Frankly, I'm not sold on Morales being a full time piece of the 2013 rotation and any plan that has him penciled in as the default 5th starter/seat warmer for De La Rosa is not a good one.

[Rovin Romine]

I think Morales belongs in the 'pen, and DLR should begin the season in Pawtucket.

If you think one of those guys is your 5th starter, then of course you'll just load up with something like last year's Cook/Padilla/Silva pu pu platter for depth and consider the starting pitching settled.

Frankly, I'm not sold on Morales being a full time piece of the 2013 rotation and any plan that has him penciled in as the default 5th starter/seat warmer for De La Rosa is not a good one.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the platter approach for the #5 starter - at least until you can shore up the lineup. If we had a starting lineup that could contend, then yes, I'd say Haren would be a good quasi-final piece. I realize I didn't raise the lineup issue in my initial post, but I think that our rotation is mostly set at this point.

Variants of the same ?-mark-player problem has haunted us since early last year in terms of what approach makes sense. Well, at least until the Dodger trade. It's hard to predict just what many players will be able to contribute on this team, which makes adding temporary pieces problematic.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the platter approach for the #5 starter - at least until you can shore up the lineup. If we had a starting lineup that could contend, then yes, I'd say Haren would be a good quasi-final piece. I realize I didn't raise the lineup issue in my initial post, but I think that our rotation is mostly set at this point.

The problem is that in order to have the opinion that the rotation is mostly set, you have to make a few assumptions. 1.) Lester will bounce back. 2.) Buchholz can pitch at a high level for an entire season. 3.) Lackey is healthy and will be at least league average all year. 4.) Doubront will take a step forward and wasn't pushed too hard in 2012. 5.) A combination of DLR, Morales, Webster, Britton and maybe Barnes can adequately fill the 5th starter slot.

One seems like a decent assumption to make, though is obviously not guaranteed. Two seems like a decent bet, as well. After his rough start, Buchholz was very good the rest of the year. He did taper off toward the end of the season, but that was likely fatigue after missing most of 2011 and being asked to pitch a full season. Three is a huge question, though. If healthy, I think Lackey is a good bet to be at least league average, but he's coming off of major reconstructive surgery on his pitching arm. Sure, TJ surgery recovery rates are really high, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to just assume Lackey will be one of the successes. If he was the 5th starter with the guys we have in the minors behind him, I'd be fine with that. But he's not. We're already looking at having to piece together a 5th starter out of multiple arms without adding another pitcher from outside the organization. Four seems like he's primed to take a step forward, but he might be at a higher than normal risk of injury considering his inning jump from 2011 to 2012. Yet another iffy proposition. And five is a pretty good bet, so long as those same guys aren't filling innings for Doubront and/or Lackey.

Adding another pitcher from the free agent crop or through trade (I don't think Haren is the right target, btw) isn't just a good idea. I think it's necessary if they really do hope to compete in 2013. Maybe all the talk about getting right back into the hunt for the division is just marketing BS and they plan to sit back a year and let the farm hands develop for a push in 2014, but so far indications are they plan to restock the major league roster quickly and that means they need a starting pitcher they can rely on for quality innings for the entire season.

[Montana Fan]

Jim Bowden's turn. He predicts Rubby will win 10-12 games if he can improve control of his curve.

He also thinks we've seen Doubie's ceiling.

He had a comment about Lackey too but I missed it.

MLB radio at 3:30 Montana.

[Rovin Romine]

The problem is that in order to have the opinion that the rotation is mostly set, you have to make a few assumptions. 1.) Lester will bounce back. 2.) Buchholz can pitch at a high level for an entire season. 3.) Lackey is healthy and will be at least league average all year. 4.) Doubront will take a step forward and wasn't pushed too hard in 2012. 5.) A combination of DLR, Morales, Webster, Britton and maybe Barnes can adequately fill the 5th starter slot.

***

Adding another pitcher from the free agent crop or through trade (I don't think Haren is the right target, btw) isn't just a good idea. I think it's necessary if they really do hope to compete in 2013.

Hmm. Now that I think about it in those terms, the odds are one of those five will not go smoothly. . .

[Savin Hillbilly]

I completely agree that we need to add an SP, and I think this is just the year to do it via FA, because there are options this year who don't have an elite reputation to drive their price tags into the stratosphere, but promise to provide solid, above-average, 150+ inning kind of performance at a reasonable price. Sanchez and Jackson seem like the SP equivalent of guys like Beltre in 2011 (sob). We need to add one of those guys if we can. It wouldn't turn the rotation from terrible to dominating; it isn't the former and it wouldn't become the latter. But it would turn it from frail to robust.

[Edelpeddle]

The Yankees plan to offer Kuroda a qualifying offer but our first round pick is protected.

http://www.mlbtrader...rod-wright.html

Would there be any downside to signing Kuroda on our part? I'm not that familiar with the new CBA, I'm hoping someone else is.

[judyb]

The 1st being protected means they'd lose their 2nd round pick instead.

[dylanmarsh]

The 1st being protected means they'd lose their 2nd round pick instead.

And it's eliminated not reassigned to the MFY, right?

[Papelbon's Poutine]

They get a supplemental pick.

[Corsi]

Morosi:

The Blue Jays also are among the clubs to inquire on right-hander Scott Baker, a free agent after going 8-6 with a 3.14 ERA over 134-2/3 innings during an injury-shortened 2012 season with the Minnesota Twins. The Red Sox, Cubs and Rangers have varying degrees of interest in Baker, as well, sources say.

http://mlbbuzz.yardb...5?new_post=true

[SoxScout]

I've been a proponent of Marcum but I thought his fly ball tendencies would scare off the the Sox. If we are liking Baker, Marcum should be in play. I like both those guys.

I think Carlos Villanueva is going to be the steal of secondary pitchers market. He's got similar peripherals.

Edited by SoxScout, 02 November 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Max Venerable]

I'd really like to see Grienke, even if it does mean a long term, fairly painful contract.

I'm of the belief that this team can turn it around and make the post season, if not this year then next, and once there you really are in need of top level pitching for multiple games of a series. Grienke I think can be a guy that can stand in atop our rotation, which is really what we are going to need at the end of the day to go deep in the playoffs. Make him the top FA aquisition of the season and skimp wherever else you need to. A year out, we are going to have the depth in the upper minors going forward to make up for a weakness in most other positions, but ace level pitching is not going to come easily any other way, and there really are few pitchers with the track record and tools that Grienke possesses.

Edited by Max Venerable, 02 November 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[Cellar-Door]

https://twitter.com/...580008964653057
Dan Haren is a free agent now.

[Rasputin]

https://twitter.com/...580008964653057
Dan Haren is a free agent now.

Which, perhaps ironically, makes me less interested. Him being on a one year deal was a significant part of the appeal and I'm sure as a FA he'll get more than that.

[PandaSox]

Beyond the Box Score with a good piece on Anibal Sanchez, and how he's bounced back nicely since the 2007 shoulder surgery.