Impossible to say. I assume there’s more stress/wear-and-tear on starting pitchers than relievers, but I suppose that depends on what type of pitcher we’re talking about and the specifics of the relief role. Not to mention the pitchers’s build and durability. Its why relief pitchers have to be “stretched out” to become starters but not vice versa.
It's not impossible to say. The rib and the wrist injuries this year had nothing to do with his role on the mound as they happened off the field. The line drive to the finger was a fluke that could just as easily have happened in the 8th inning as the 2nd. Relievers tear their UCL and need Tommy John, or suffer shoulder strain/tendonitis, just as much as starters do. So no, none of his injuries would have been prevented had he been a reliever.
well had hal not try to lowball him before the season started 300 mil was a good guess but i heard hal offred 250-275 mil but not 100% knowed but due to judge myp year his value has jumped 50-100 mil
Dare I saw McGuire's been great. Really like the way he calls a game. Just ushered young Bello through a tough inning. Tied for 10th in WAR/PA for a catcher.
Hell, call him up now and cut Plawecki. That way you get an extra person on the roster before tomorrow.
Is there a need to do this today? Can't they do it anytime in September? Unless your thinking is the post season roster, but that's a moot point now isn't it?
More to give Plawecki a chance to catch on with a contender and clear the way for a prospect. With only two new players to be added, starting tomorrow, letting Plawecki go and calling up Wong or Hernández might have let them effectively call up three guys.
They're going to spend 100 million this offseason and add a lot to espn's made up definition of a core, so yeah
If you had to rank the 5 AL east teams right now on how many playoff appearances they'll make in the next 5-10 years starting in 2024 would the Sox be last? If not then you're essentially admitting that those core ratings mean nothing because they're going to change a ton soon.
Most likely, yes, based on current talent under control in the majors and minors; I’d probably rank the Sox last in the division. I don’t think that’s really controversial. Who would you have them ahead of?
I'd absolutely take them over Baltimore and Tampa. They made the playoffs last year, they would have been right in the mix this year with average injuries, and they're going to massively outspend those teams. Really not a lot has to go right when they have that much money to spend, they just need to not spend it terribly and not have terrible injury luck.
Why? What do you think would make “the most sense”?
This is not a real great FA class in regards to the needs on the 2023 roster. Are you sure you want to spend 100 million this off season? If so, where do you want to spend it?
Agree with this on Wacha. I’d like him back but I don’t see any team offering QO equivalent one year deals at all. A 2-3 year innings incentive opt in/out at AAV around $12M seems generous
I mean, sure, a 2/$24 type deal would work too, but the qualifying offer deadline comes before the opening of free agency. So unless we extend Wacha before all that, the QO decision would have to be made before we theoretically outbid other teams and sign him to this team-friendlier deal.
Here is a FA tracker
Chaim wasting money needlessly or lining the owner's pockets, we can't have both.
That said there does seem to be a lack of FAs that are a level below the "elite" guys which might be a good place to stretch that $100 M and fill some needs. Ideally part of the money can be put toward extending Devers. IF (huge if) X comes back the infield is mostly set with Casas being elevated. Wong/McGuire might be enough behind the plate, Arroyo covers your utility slot and backup 1B doesn't seem as urgent as it was during the current season, but I must say that Trey Mancini interests me as a 1B platoon/RF/DH. Speaking of DH, I really don't care to see the position tied down to an all bat, no glove type of player. I'd much rather see another position player that can allow the DH slot to be used as a place to rotate players as a means to provide a semi day off while not limiting your bench. Chaim MUST find two outfielders who are above average with the bat and the glove. Can Kike' be one of those guys? If Bogaerts isn't back I like the idea of Trea Turner as he may be able to transition into the OF when Mayer is ready. The rotation, y'all can say what you want about Sale, but he's there. I'd like to see a solid #2 type added to the rotation and there are at least 3-4 spots in the pen that need to be addressed. There are a couple of arms in house that seem to be in flux and will need to be settled before Bloom knows what he needs. For planning purposes there needs to be a plan moving forward with Whitlock and Houck.
Spending doesn't have to all be on free agents. They can make some trades, especially of the 2-3 prospects for 1 player on the verge of getting expensive variety in order to alleviate a bit of the 40-man roster crunch that's coming.
It can also go towards extending arb players which would bump up their 2023 salaries.
They're going to clear at least 8 spots with departing free agents, likely 10 depending on Bogaerts and Pham's options. They've got two guys on the 60-day IL to re-add (Sale and Taylor), possibly three depending on what happens with Paxton. So that's only 6 or so spots opened and at least a half-dozen, if not more rule 5 guys who they will probably want to protect. And then they'll want spots for anyone they intend to add (free agent, trade, rule 5 draft, etc).
It's this year, yeah. Full list of eligibility here.
Other teams have the same roster crunches. Have those 3 or 4 for 1 deals with Rule 5 eligible players ever happened? It's talked about all the time, but has it ever actually taken place? These guys don't get protected for a reason.
Recent years have often been unusual, but NY generally does a few of these. The one that comes to mind immediately was when they moved Nick Rumbelow (a AAAA reliever who needed to be protected) to SEA for two low minors pitchers, one of whom they later moved back to SEA in a 1-for-1 deal for half a season of Edwin Encarnacion and the other one was JP Sears, who blossomed this year before NY traded him to OAK in the Montas deal (and he is now in the OAK rotation).
Now that's something I haven't considered....Only they have to be really elite guys right? I mean Chaim has to explain to JH huge $ even if it is a 1 or 2 year deal.
Adding $100M to the 2023 payroll can have little to no effect on future payrolls if the players are on short enough deals (and no one is saying they're going to spend that money entirely on big long deals). And they certainly aren't going to lock themselves into enough salary this winter that they can't be players for Ohtani in 2024.
Has anyone tried the
Correa and Bauer come to mind. They signed short-term deals with opt-outs for big AAV.
Very confused how a 220m team would win 70 games but a 270m team would win in the mid to high 80s. Are they signing Mike Trout and Prime Barry Bonds with that extra 50m?
Apologies, I'll be more precise next time. By 70ish games, I meant anything under 80 games (like this year). We've spent $240m this year for what's likely to be 78-79 wins.
I'll ask as well, how would that extra $50M make the difference between last place and "trying to compete"? Who are the players that that $50M goes to that make that much of a difference, and why can't they just get those players with the first $220M, particularly since they've only got about $110M committed so far? I'm not against the team spending more money to win, I just don't understand the implication that $220M isn't enough but $270M is.
