2019-20 Offseason Discussion

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
55
Am I not wording my posts well this morning or something?

It would be a good PR move for the Red Sox to do the Myers deal + the version I see is a good value for the Red Sox is a lukewarm take at best & I don't really see what is controversial about it?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,769
The wrong side of the bridge....
Am I not wording my posts well this morning or something?

It would be a good PR move for the Red Sox to do the Myers deal + the version I see is a good value for the Red Sox is a lukewarm take at best & I don't really see what is controversial about it?
It doesn't make any sense to say that it would be a good PR move for the Sox to trade their beloved superstar and then acquire an overpriced fringe guy to prove they're not cheap. Not even WEEI listeners are that dim. The Myers trade ideas being floated do make sense, but the reasons don't lend themselves to simple takes like that.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
135
Portland, Maine
They now have Suárez, Moustakas, and Akiyama under control at Senzel's positions and San Diego would be sending them something major, maybe something more useful like Luis Patino
Right - I was thinking more about what they might want from an enlarged trade. For instance, would they see some appeal in swapping Santillan (high-upside, some risk, might need time) for Quantrill + (low-upside, low risk, ready now). That would give them a deep rotation in 2020, and buffer the loss of Bauer and Desclafani in 2021. They could also use Chavis as a super-utility guy, especially if Senzel is gone.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
MLBtr is saying it's possible the a Myers trade with the Sox could become a three-team deal including the Reds, with Senzel going to SD. I'm not really sure I understand the Reds motivation in all this, but do they have anyone worth targeting who could be pulled away? Tony Santillan?
Lucas Sims seems like the sort of spin-rate dork that Bloom would be into. Very very good curveball. Could be a 2-3 inning guy.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,024
Oregon
MLBtr is saying it's possible the a Myers trade with the Sox could become a three-team deal including the Reds, with Senzel going to SD.
MLBTR doesn't mention Senzel in relation to this trade idea. It might be in the actual reporting, from The Atlantic, but I don't have a subscription.

MLBTR, quoting another actual reporter, says that Senzel and Lindor could be targets in a big deal. But it doesn't tie Senzel to the three-team trade.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Am I not wording my posts well this morning or something?

It would be a good PR move for the Red Sox to do the Myers deal + the version I see is a good value for the Red Sox is a lukewarm take at best & I don't really see what is controversial about it?
Ascribing motives for things that haven't happened, to people who have not said anything, is a much higher form of "logic" than to which i am accustomed.
 

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
55
It doesn't make any sense to say that it would be a good PR move for the Sox to trade their beloved superstar and then acquire an overpriced fringe guy to prove they're not cheap. Not even WEEI listeners are that dim. The Myers trade ideas being floated do make sense, but the reasons don't lend themselves to simple takes like that.
Trading Mookie = really bad PR, but sound baseball decision
Trading for Myers = slightly good PR, & probably sound baseball decision, depending on the details

It lends credence to the theory, which I think is an obvious truth, that the ownership is willing to spend $$$, it just isn't willing to suffer the competitive disadvantage of going over the CBT. I would think eating like $10m/year that doesn't count toward the threshold in order to buy prospects would be easy to spin in a positive direction?

Maybe I'm just giving disgruntled fans too much credit?
 

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
55
Ascribing motives for things that haven't happened, to people who have not said anything, is a much higher form of "logic" than to which i am accustomed.
I mean, I thought my initial post was pretty obviously in a joking manner in terms of the delivery?

Red Sox owners going to acquire Myers for the primary purpose of proving to fans that they aren't actually cheap.

If we can actually get Quantrill + Campusano for a $4m CBT hit, sign me up immediately, though.
But that doesn't also mean that it wouldn't be good PR as well as a good baseball deal.

Yes & no?

You've seen all the posts on here, & I'm sure even more in other places with less informed fans where the owners are getting bashed for being cheap & that's why they traded away Betts/Price.

So even making a neutral trade where the owners are paying $ out of pocket in a way that doesn't impact the CBT would have super nice optics for them.

But like I said in the 2nd paragraph, if that's the actual deal, it's awesome anyway, & I don't think they'd do it as part of a move that Bloom felt was deleterious for their chances of success just to do it.
Which is what I said here?

Still at a loss why any of this is controversial ‾\_(ツ)_/‾
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I mean, I thought my initial post was pretty obviously in a joking manner in terms of the delivery?
No, no it isn't. No one knows you here yet and you followed up with more of the same. We see much more poor posting from folks than we do clever satire, and rereading your contributions here, I haven't really changed my mind, not even with your additional input.

 

Rich Garces Belly

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2009
286
Even with Betts in the Dodgers’ camp, the Padres have recently explored the possibility of sending Myers, young talent and cash to Boston in what might essentially amount to a salary dump. San Diego has a number of young players who continue to interest the Red Sox, including catching prospect Luis Campusano and shortstop prospect Gabriel Arias. The San Diego Union-Tribune first reported the continuing talks involving Myers and Boston.

As part of these considerations, the Padres have discussed a potential three-team trade that would ship Myers to the Red Sox and land Cincinnati Reds center fielder-second baseman Nick Senzel in San Diego, two sources told The Athletic. No agreement is imminent, and it is unknown what the Reds would receive in this scenario. But for the Padres, Senzel would fill a need in the middle of the outfield.

From the Athletic:
Optimistic about Manny Machado’s second season, Padres search for more help
 

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
55
No, no it isn't. No one knows you here yet and you followed up with more of the same. We see much more poor posting from folks than we do clever satire, and rereading your contributions here, I haven't really changed my mind, not even with your additional input.

Ok, the internet is a super serious place where you can't exaggerate for fun. Got it. Maybe I don't understand the tone of this place. My 1st post was about how I wish DD did a better job stocking the farm system, while also saying the trades he made weren't the problem, & somehow that got bashed as some kind of hot take.

There are several posters here whose posts I enjoy, so I'll just quietly enjoy them.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,186
The Short Bus
Here's Myers' ops+ numbers the past five seasons: 112, 115, 109, 110, 95. Remarkably consistent from 2015-2018. Then a bad 2019. One bad year after four years where the ops+ numbers were virtually the same. That doesn't scream "decline" to me. It screams "bad year; maybe a decline, but maybe just a bad year". And as I pointed out, his numbers vs LHP were really pretty solid (.877 ops).
Myers was pretty well settled in at first base in 2016 and 2017, when he posted WAR of 3.5 and 2.0, and an OPS of 115 and 109. He was hurt in 2018, but the Padres had signed Hosmer, so he was playing exclusively outfield. In 2019, when his numbers dipped across the board, he was again playing almost exclusively OF. I wonder if a change of scenery/position is all he needs to get back to 2016/2017 production.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,769
The wrong side of the bridge....
Trading Mookie = really bad PR, but sound baseball decision
Trading for Myers = slightly good PR, & probably sound baseball decision, depending on the details

It lends credence to the theory, which I think is an obvious truth, that the ownership is willing to spend $$$, it just isn't willing to suffer the competitive disadvantage of going over the CBT. I would think eating like $10m/year that doesn't count toward the threshold in order to buy prospects would be easy to spin in a positive direction?

Maybe I'm just giving disgruntled fans too much credit?
Yes, I think you are. I think the distinction between CBT salary and overall salary is one that the average fan won't care about even if they understand it. It's the kind of thing Shaughnessy would dismiss with an eyeroll as typical sabernerd angels-on-a-pinhead stuff, and though we make fun of him here, Shaughnessy's perspective is probably a pretty good barometer of the average fan's.

So to the extent that most fans will parse a Myers acquisition in the context of the Mookie trade, it'll be the opposite of good PR: "WTF? You traded *Mookie* because money, and now you're spending god knows how many millions on a has-been that we only remember for looking stupid on a fly ball years ago? Sell the $#@% team you basterds!"

Of course given that we're as far into the spring as we are, and there seems to have been no movement on this since the initial Myers rumor, I'm inclined to suspect it's a nothingburger anyway.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
Ok, the internet is a super serious place where you can't exaggerate for fun. Got it. Maybe I don't understand the tone of this place. My 1st post was about how I wish DD did a better job stocking the farm system, while also saying the trades he made weren't the problem, & somehow that got bashed as some kind of hot take.

There are several posters here whose posts I enjoy, so I'll just quietly enjoy them.
You can post. Just stop going over and over the same stuff. We got it.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
Myers was pretty well settled in at first base in 2016 and 2017, when he posted WAR of 3.5 and 2.0, and an OPS of 115 and 109. He was hurt in 2018, but the Padres had signed Hosmer, so he was playing exclusively outfield. In 2019, when his numbers dipped across the board, he was again playing almost exclusively OF. I wonder if a change of scenery/position is all he needs to get back to 2016/2017 production.
This seems right to me. If healthy, he’s very likely a league average first baseman and left fielder who hits lefties well. That profile is more useful to our team than others because he can slot into a platoon rotation with Moreland and maybe Benintendi or Bradley.

At 29, Myers still has upside. And he still hits the ball hard — his 11.2% barrel rate last year is very good (would have been fourth on last year’s team behind JDM, Moreland and Chavis).
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,135
CT
With all the talk about how bad Myers is, I was surprised to see that he still had 18 HR and 16 SB in 2019 despite hitting in Petco for 81 games. I am sure there are other metrics that might not be so encouraging but he is certainly not as bad as I was expecting.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,915
Deep inside Muppet Labs
With all the talk about how bad Myers is, I was surprised to see that he still had 18 HR and 16 SB in 2019 despite hitting in Petco for 81 games. I am sure there are other metrics that might not be so encouraging but he is certainly not as bad as I was expecting.
B-Ref has him at 0.7 WAR offensively in 2019, which is....not great. 95 OPS+. Petco or not he wasn't very good offensively.

He also was at -1.4 WAR defensively as well, which as others have noted may be related to playing in the OF instead of 1B.

I would caution against assuming that moving from Petco to Fenway would automatically help his offensive numbers. We all said the same thing about Adrian Gonzalez, and his HR total went DOWN upon arriving at Fenway, although his doubles did go up. His OPS+ was roughly the same too (152 vs 155).

If Myers goes back to first base, then he could rebound to be average offensively and maybe get the WAR up to above zero again. But he's 29, he's never been anything more than a little bit above average, and he's owed 22.5 million for each of the next three years. That combo makes him one of the most unappealing possible acquisitions in the game. SD would have to pick up a ton of salary for any sort of trade to make sense, and even then it's not likely to help the team much.
 
Last edited:

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,604
Is there something in Myers that Bloom sees that we're all missing here? I mean... he seems fine... and the prospects being discussed don't seem all that exciting to me, and I don't really see where he fits in. Was wondering if getting Myers for only $4M AAV and then paying half that to some other team to get even some more prospects is on the plate. I have absolutely zero idea if that's even legal and what that 3rd team would be.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,915
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Myers has decent discipline and makes hard contact. He just doesn't make enough contact. Bring that 34.3% K rate down to 25% and you're looking at a .275/.353/.455 slash.

Is this a fixable problem?
Technically, anything's fixable, I suppose. But he's 29. This isn't a young guy ready to be molded into a new shape. This is a veteran player. His K rate last year was by far the highest of his career so maybe there's a fluke aspect to it, but he's never going to be a high contact guy. He's always struck out a lot.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,390
Well, Myers did have a WAR over 3 years in a row prior to 2019, so it's not a huge stretch to think he can at least give Moreland-esque production. But if the reports are true that he would cost about 4 mil under the CBT but 10 mil in real money, then this deal is mostly about buying prospects, which isn't uncommon.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
If Myers goes back to first base, then he could rebound to be average offensively and maybe get the WAR up to above zero again. But he's 29, he's never been anything more than a little bit above average, and he's owed 22.5 million for each of the next three years. That combo makes him one of the most unappealing possible acquisitions in the game. SD would have to pick up a ton of salary for any sort of trade to make sense, and even then it's not likely to help the team much.
Sure, but we’re not trading for Wil Myers. We’re (potentially) taking him on in exchange for more assets, which we sorely need, and acknowledging that his skill set may be better suited for our park and current roster than other teams.

Also, very crucially, his annual salary is not $22.5 million in any way that should concern us. It sounds like that figure may concern Padres ownership, but the $13.8 AAV — and whatever of that Preller might pay down — is the only salary-related piece thing we should care about.

This trade, as rumored, is good and it is also smart. Bloom knows what he’s doing, and he probably knows Wil Myers pretty well too.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,990
Rogers Park
Maybe I've missed it somewhere ... but what are the details or this rumored trade?
Short answer: we don’t know.

The SD papers were saying that Preller was still talking with Bloom about a deal to send Myers and money to Boston, along with prospects: names mentioned were pitcher Cal Quantrill, catcher Luis Campusano, and infielder Gabriel Arias.

There was also a wrinkle that involved the Reds, with the suggestion that SD might try to acquire top Cinci prospect Nick Senzel, an infielder whom Cincinnati is planning to play out of position in CF. A deal that sent Senzel to SD for a good young pitcher might help both teams. But it isn’t clear if these are two trades, or one three-team trade.

Beyond that, it’s pure speculation.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
Short answer: we don’t know.

The SD papers were saying that Preller was still talking with Bloom about a deal to send Myers and money to Boston, along with prospects: names mentioned were pitcher Cal Quantrill, catcher Luis Campusano, and infielder Gabriel Arias.

There was also a wrinkle that involved the Reds, with the suggestion that SD might try to acquire top Cinci prospect Nick Senzel, an infielder whom Cincinnati is planning to play out of position in CF. A deal that sent Senzel to SD for a good young pitcher might help both teams. But it isn’t clear if these are two trades, or one three-team trade.

Beyond that, it’s pure speculation.
Exactly, thanks. By “this rumored trade” I meant Myers (and half his salary)/Quantrill/Campusano/Arias for...we don’t know.

Running that through the ole Trade Values sausagemaker, it may take a prospect like Chavis or Dalbec if Myers is paid down by half, or a couple 11-20 prospects if we pay it in full (which I’m assuming we wouldn’t, since it would put us over the threshold again).

If it’s Myers*, Campusano, Quantrill and Arias for Chavis and Houck, I would do that trade.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,024
Oregon
Exactly, thanks. By “this rumored trade” I meant Myers (and half his salary)/Quantrill/Campusano/Arias for...we don’t know.
Then, how can you call it "good" and "smart" if you a) don't know which prospects would be coming with Myers and b) what the Red Sox would be giving up?

That's what threw me off
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
Then, how can you call it "good" and "smart" if you a) don't know which prospects would be coming with Myers and b) what the Red Sox would be giving up?

That's what threw me off
Sure, fair. I guess I do have some faith in Bloom and the current team that they wouldn’t give up much for that package, particularly considering the position Preller is in.

Regardless, there aren’t a ton of options in the list of players we’d send. I’d be pissed if it were Downs or Casas going the other way, but honestly the next most valuable player we have would be Dalbec or Chavis, and I kinda think that’s still a good deal.

It could get more money complicated if Eovaldi or Bradley or something get involved, but I meant that Bloom getting in on a salary dump for an undervalued asset like Myers, however fringe, is good.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,275
Then, how can you call it "good" and "smart" if you a) don't know which prospects would be coming with Myers and b) what the Red Sox would be giving up?

That's what threw me off
Because it would be an opportunity to use Boston's financial resources to 'buy' higher-end prospects by using Myers's unique contract situation (San Diego saves real money by getting his contract off their books, but the contract is structured in a way that the luxury-tax hit to the Red Sox would be minimal, assuming that the Padres kick in 50% as is being discussed).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,769
The wrong side of the bridge....
Because it would be an opportunity to use Boston's financial resources to 'buy' higher-end prospects by using Myers's unique contract situation (San Diego saves real money by getting his contract off their books, but the contract is structured in a way that the luxury-tax hit to the Red Sox would be minimal, assuming that the Padres kick in 50% as is being discussed).
Bingo. Obviously it would be possible to make a range of deals predicated on Myers, some of them much better than others. But the basic idea of converting that "unique contract situation" into additional prospect value is a good one.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,275
Dan Shaughnessy takes aim at the 'dreaded' opener concept:

I asked Bloom if he’s comfortable with his starting staff.

“I don’t know if you’re ever comfortable,’’ said the young chief baseball officer. “You always want to upgrade them, and it takes so much pitching to get through a successful season, so we’re always looking to add.

“I know that we obviously took a starter out of our rotation [Price], and we like a lot of the guys that we’re eager to get a look at them as the spring rolls on, but you’re always looking to add and thicken the group.’’

More likely, we are going to see a soft parade of Tampa-like openers — tall, faceless pitchers who throw 98 m.p.h. for one inning, then disappear into the ether. It is the Tampa Bay Way, and it’s coming soon to a ballpark near you. If you like long games, The Opener is for you.
No doubt he's teeing it up for future comparisons with the dreaded 'Closer by Committee' of years past.
 

FredCDobbs

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2004
546
Austin
I'm old enough (I actually died in Ol Mexico in 1948) to feel nauseous at the thought of the Opener. I remain open to being worn down to grudging acceptance over time.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,915
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I would posit that TB's success on the field in spite of comically small payrolls and due in part to their use of Openers would be an argument FOR the Opener, especially if you don't have five good starters.

Naturally Dan doesn't see it that way.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,024
Oregon
Because it would be an opportunity to use Boston's financial resources to 'buy' higher-end prospects by using Myers's unique contract situation (San Diego saves real money by getting his contract off their books, but the contract is structured in a way that the luxury-tax hit to the Red Sox would be minimal, assuming that the Padres kick in 50% as is being discussed).
Bingo. Obviously it would be possible to make a range of deals predicated on Myers, some of them much better than others. But the basic idea of converting that "unique contract situation" into additional prospect value is a good one.
I get that point in the abstract. I guess I've always been the type to wait to see the actual details of a transaction before feeling assured enough to approve of it.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
Dan Shaughnessy takes aim at the 'dreaded' opener concept:
God, I can’t stand him. “If you like long games, The Opener is for you” is such a bullshit line.

The 2018 and 19 Red Sox already played the longest games in all MLB by a considerable margin. The Rays played the sixth quickest games in baseball in 2018, the year they first implemented the opener. They were middle of the pack last year.

And anyway, the purpose of deploying an opener is not to lengthen games, but help you win them. As a fan, I’d rather sacrifice two minutes and have a stronger chance at winning the game than to watch Rick Porcello or Andrew Cashner cruise through five innings and give up three or four runs.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,829
Maine
God, I can’t stand him. “If you like long games, The Opener is for you” is such a bullshit line.

The 2018 and 19 Red Sox already played the longest games in all MLB by a considerable margin. The Rays played the sixth quickest games in baseball in 2018, the year they first implemented the opener. They were middle of the pack last year.

And anyway, the purpose of deploying an opener is not to lengthen games, but help you win them. As a fan, I’d rather sacrifice two minutes and have a stronger chance at winning the game than to watch Rick Porcello or Andrew Cashner cruise through five innings and give up three or four runs.
Got to say, of all the arguments against the use of openers, the "it makes games longer" argument is the dumbest one of all. Isn't the typical use of an opener one in which the starting pitcher goes just one inning (maybe two) and then ducks out for another pitcher? If that's the case, and that pitcher does his job, where does the added time come from? When he's replaced after a complete inning, wouldn't his replacement simply enter the game and warm up during the inning break that already exists, using no more time than the original pitcher would if he stayed in?

All the opener does is take a one-inning pitcher and move him from the 6th or 7th inning to the first. In other words, it's a pitching change that would most likely happen even with a traditional starter opening the game and pitching as deep as he can.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,904
Hingham, MA
God, I can’t stand him. “If you like long games, The Opener is for you” is such a bullshit line.

The 2018 and 19 Red Sox already played the longest games in all MLB by a considerable margin. The Rays played the sixth quickest games in baseball in 2018, the year they first implemented the opener. They were middle of the pack last year.

And anyway, the purpose of deploying an opener is not to lengthen games, but help you win them. As a fan, I’d rather sacrifice two minutes and have a stronger chance at winning the game than to watch Rick Porcello or Andrew Cashner cruise through five innings and give up three or four runs.
Someone smarter or with more time than me could probably look through their game logs and calculate average game time in opener games vs. all other games. Guessing it would show... no variance.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,102
New York City
Got to say, of all the arguments against the use of openers, the "it makes games longer" argument is the dumbest one of all. Isn't the typical use of an opener one in which the starting pitcher goes just one inning (maybe two) and then ducks out for another pitcher? If that's the case, and that pitcher does his job, where does the added time come from? When he's replaced after a complete inning, wouldn't his replacement simply enter the game and warm up during the inning break that already exists, using no more time than the original pitcher would if he stayed in?

All the opener does is take a one-inning pitcher and move him from the 6th or 7th inning to the first. In other words, it's a pitching change that would most likely happen even with a traditional starter opening the game and pitching as deep as he can.
And even if it did, so what? If longer games mean the Sox are going to win more of those games sign me up.
 

PhabPhour20

lurker
Jan 5, 2007
174
Spankee Country, CT
Someone smarter or with more time than me could probably look through their game logs and calculate average game time in opener games vs. all other games. Guessing it would show... no variance.
I'd guess the variance would come in more traditional "bullpen games" where you know your second pitcher, the erstwhile "starter," won't be going more than 3 or 4, resulting in more pitching changes in general. Some of those are likely to be during an inning to take advantage of matchups, resulting in a theoretically longer game.

If you still expected your second pitcher to go 5 or 6, then yeah, no variance.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,904
Hingham, MA
I'd guess the variance would come in more traditional "bullpen games" where you know your second pitcher, the erstwhile "starter," won't be going more than 3 or 4, resulting in more pitching changes in general. Some of those are likely to be during an inning to take advantage of matchups, resulting in a theoretically longer game.

If you still expected your second pitcher to go 5 or 6, then yeah, no variance.
Even in bullpen games, like you say the changes are more likely to come in between innings. I still wouldn't suspect you would see much variance vs. regular games.

Edit: if someone has a b-ref membership this should be pretty easy to download and figure out using the play finder
 
Last edited:

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,923
Boston, MA
Even in bullpen games, like you say the changes are more likely to come in between innings. I still wouldn't suspect you would see much variance vs. regular games.

Edit: if someone has a b-ref membership this should be pretty easy to download and figure out using the play finder
The data could get messed up by traditional starters who get bombed in the first inning or two and get removed. Those games would almost certainly be longer than average, but didn't involve an opener.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,904
Hingham, MA
The data could get messed up by traditional starters who get bombed in the first inning or two and get removed. Those games would almost certainly be longer than average, but didn't involve an opener.
Very true, but I still doubt it would skew the data
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,312
Dan Shaughnessy takes aim at the 'dreaded' opener concept:



No doubt he's teeing it up for future comparisons with the dreaded 'Closer by Committee' of years past.
How does using openers lengthen games? Usually pitching changes from openers come in between innings. Which take precisely NO extra time at all.

edit: never mind, I see that this has already been covered
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
2,710
In case anyone is interested, Valdez is 27 years old and been inhabiting the minor leagues are various levels most of his pro career.

He did make a brief appearance with the Ranger in 2019. Some of his MLB stats include:

16 innings, 17 hits, 7 ER, 7 Runs, 3 HR, 9 walks, 18 K, and WHIP of 1.625.

 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
5,905
SS Botany Bay
"Hard-throwing" seems like an odd adjective to use for a guy whose fastball averaged 92.4 mph last year.
But we're getting a guy who provides 92.4% of the speed of a 100mph reliever at less than 1/10 the cost!

In all seriousness, he seems to be a hard sinkerballer, for which 92 isn't bad but he is not exactly throwing bowling balls either.

To me it looks like Valdez has a Pedro-esque delivery with a very wiry frame. Actually perhaps a little more Ramon than Pedro.