Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Sep 13, 2006
689
Anyone bitching right now is worried about winning the off-season. Period. Couch it as worrying about winning a title, but they don't win titles in January and February.
Unfortunately, SoSH can always be counted on for posters who post solely to bitch about the perceived "bitching" of other posters. Instead, why don't you post something substantive to counter the points being made that the pen (as currently constituted) is full of question marks?

Titles are won by teams with well-constructed rosters. Key roster additions often take place in January and February. See Martinez, JD.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,795
Maine
Unfortunately, SoSH can always be counted on for posters who post solely to bitch about the perceived "bitching" of other posters. Instead, why don't you post something substantive to counter the points being made that the pen (as currently constituted) is full of question marks?

Titles are won by teams with well-constructed rosters. Key roster additions often take place in January and February. See Martinez, JD.
My response to the concern about the pen as currently constituted is that it is fucking January. How it is currently constituted is not what it's going to look like when pitchers and catchers report, let alone Opening Day, let alone in August-September-October.

Not signing Adam Ottovino is not the end of the world.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,784
So please - someone enlighten me on the plan.
Bring a bunch of guys who the scouts like into Spring Training and have the guys who pitch the best come North and see if their success is sustainable, then trade for a hot reliever or two in June?

There are tons of guys who can still be had. For example: the Giants are in a rebuild, so Will Smith and Tony Watson serve no purpose there. Maybe they can return the favor on the Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez trades that helped win them win a ring.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So 4 is not several?

I stand by what I said. The bullpen as constructed cannot be expected to support a serious contender.

So please - someone enlighten me on the plan.
So name 4.

I'd call several "5 or more" but if you want to say there are 4 other closers out there making $17 million or more, go ahead. And I wouldn't call Mark Melancon a closer yet
 
Sep 13, 2006
689
My response to the concern about the pen as currently constituted is that it is fucking January. How it is currently constituted is not what it's going to look like when pitchers and catchers report, let alone Opening Day, let alone in August-September-October.

Not signing Adam Ottovino is not the end of the world.
In a world where reliable, high-leverage relievers are in plentiful supply, the fact "it is fucking January" would be a well-thought-out response. But that isn't the world the Sox are living in. Instead, the harsh reality is that there are a limited number of pitchers capable of effectively pitching high-leverage innings for a team with aspirations of repeating as World Champions. At the outset of the offseason, there were several solid FA choices available. The Sox signed none of them, Now, on the FA marketplace, there's Kimbrel and a bunch of 3rd-tier options.

Instead of repeated reminders regarding the calendar, I'm still waiting for you to post something substantive as to whom you envision can effectively fill the voids in the current pen.
 

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In a world where reliable, high-leverage relievers are in plentiful supply, the fact "it is fucking January" would be a well-thought-out response. But that isn't the world the Sox are living in. Instead, the harsh reality is that there are a limited number of pitchers capable of effectively pitching high-leverage innings for a team with aspirations of repeating as World Champions. At the outset of the offseason, there were several solid FA choices available. The Sox signed none of them, Now, on the FA marketplace, there's Kimbrel and a bunch of 3rd-tier options.

Instead of repeated reminders regarding the calendar, I'm still waiting for you to post something substantive as to whom you envision can effectively fill the voids in the current pen.
It's quite possible that the Red Sox look at the guys they have differently than some here do, much as they did with Brasier last year.
 

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,193
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
In a world where reliable, high-leverage relievers are in plentiful supply, the fact "it is fucking January" would be a well-thought-out response. But that isn't the world the Sox are living in. Instead, the harsh reality is that there are a limited number of pitchers capable of effectively pitching high-leverage innings for a team with aspirations of repeating as World Champions. At the outset of the offseason, there were several solid FA choices available. The Sox signed none of them, Now, on the FA marketplace, there's Kimbrel and a bunch of 3rd-tier options.

Instead of repeated reminders regarding the calendar, I'm still waiting for you to post something substantive as to whom you envision can effectively fill the voids in the current pen.
Which guys could they definitely have gotten if not for their suggested lack of effort/spending?
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,784
the harsh reality is that there are a limited number of pitchers capable of effectively pitching high-leverage innings for a team with aspirations of repeating as World Champions.
This is demonstrably false. Who was pitching the big innings for the Sox in last year's playoffs?
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
3,960
Eovaldi needs to be a starter, unless it's determined that being a closer is best for him health-wise.

There are legitimate reasons to make a starter a closer. The fact that you need a closer is NOT one of them.

The best example is Dave Righetti. In his first three seasons, one of them strike-shortened, he led the AL in FIP twice. But when the Yankees lost Gossage and couldn't find a closer in 1984, they short-sightedly made Righetti a closer.

Righetti was a terrific closer, and the Yankees had an amazing lineup -- Mattingly, Winfield, Rickey Henderson for a while -- but they never made the playoffs because they had weak starting pitching. Righetti in the rotation might have put them over the top in some of those years.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,324
My response to the concern about the pen as currently constituted is that it is fucking January. How it is currently constituted is not what it's going to look like when pitchers and catchers report, let alone Opening Day, let alone in August-September-October.

Not signing Adam Ottovino is not the end of the world.
I know I remember looking over the list of guys signed to minor-league deals in March and thinking "that Brasier guy is going to pitch some crucial innings in the postseason, mark my words!"
 
Sep 13, 2006
689
Which guys could they definitely have gotten if not for their suggested lack of effort/spending?
To answer this oddly worded question: were they willing to spend, they could have acquired any of the relievers who signed elsewhere. There were numerous reports that they were in on several of them.

This is demonstrably false. Who was pitching the big innings for the Sox in last year's playoffs?
So, according to you, there are an unlimited number of pitchers capable of effectively pitching high-leverage innings for a team with aspirations of repeating as World Champions?

I'm going to assume that your point is that the Sox relied upon their starters for a number of high-leverage innings in the Post Season, which is obviously true. However, JoKe and other relievers also contributed significantly in this regard. Using starters out of the pen is not a strategy that will work over a 162 game season.
 

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Is there a reason folks are sure Ottavino is going to be 2018 Ottavino for the NYY and not 2017 Ottavino?
I think that's a very legitimate question. His age 32 season was fantastic. But he hasn't exactly had a long, dominant career, and he still walks a lot of guys. I think his certainty has been way overrated here. Maybe he'll be the next Robertson, but he may be the next Kahnle.

EDIT--that's Kahnle, one of those arms that was deemed to be better than anything we had other than CK at this time last year.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,209
The wrong side of the bridge....
I stand by what I said. The bullpen as constructed cannot be expected to support a serious contender.
That's not what you said. What you said was that the only thing that made sense was to make Eovaldi the closer.

So please - someone enlighten me on the plan.
Some combination of Brach, Allen, Madson. If the team is in contention in July and the bullpen is a weakness, make a trade.

The bullpen won't be the best thing about the team. But it'll be OK.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
923
Connecticut
To answer this oddly worded question: were they willing to spend, they could have acquired any of the relievers who signed elsewhere. There were numerous reports that they were in on several of them.
Well the RS already have the highest payroll in the league. So you can argue that they spent unwisely, but you really can't argue that they were unwilling to spend.
And they did sign Eovaldi to a very significant contract this off season. So losing a complete year of Kelly and gaining a complete year of Eovaldi is a tremendous upgrade. It remains to be seen what side of the ledger Kimbrel is on. However it is possible that Eovaldi > Kimbrel + Kelly. That certainly is not a sure things, nor maybe not even 50-50. However, it is not like the wheels have falling off the best team in 2018.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,845
Is there a reason folks are sure Ottavino is going to be 2018 Ottavino for the NYY and not 2017 Ottavino?
I'm a hundred percent not equating him to Justin Verlander, but what Ottavino did in between 2017 and 2018 was similar to what Verlander did when coming to HOU, using analytics, slo-mo video, etc, to drastically revamp his approach. There are a bunch of articles about it, this is probably the best one, but it is pay because it's The Athletic:

https://theathletic.com/316941/2018/04/18/sarris-the-art-and-science-of-designing-a-new-pitch-from-beginning-to-end-with-adam-ottavino/

And of course he could be a dud this year, anyone could. But there is reason to think last year wasn't a fluke. He definitely has issues, he walks too many guys and he allows a ton of SBs, but also his K/9 was 13.0. I think it's worth noting that NY targeted him over Robertson, who was quite good for them and very flexible in the way they used him, so that's how much they like Ottavino anyway.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,726
Portsmouth, NH
That's not what you said. What you said was that the only thing that made sense was to make Eovaldi the closer.



Some combination of Brach, Allen, Madson. If the team is in contention in July and the bullpen is a weakness, make a trade.

The bullpen won't be the best thing about the team. But it'll be OK.
I still think Sipp is a sleeper.
 

themactavish

lurker
Aug 4, 2010
25
St. Cloud, MN
So name 4.

I'd call several "5 or more" but if you want to say there are 4 other closers out there making $17 million or more, go ahead. And I wouldn't call Mark Melancon a closer yet
For what it's worth, "several" would be more than two, but not many (OED: more than two or three, but not many; CAMBRIDGE: more than two and fewer than many). I think more than 5 would be too many, though admittedly, there is a vagueness to the term.
 

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,193
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
To answer this oddly worded question: were they willing to spend, they could have acquired any of the relievers who signed elsewhere. There were numerous reports that they were in on several of them.
Beyond the fact that the team is inarguably “willing to spend,” free agents don’t come from a vending machine. Signings require the agreement of 2 or more parties.

As a fan, the luxury tax implications aren’t that important to me, but they really need their picks and pool money in the draft to be as strong as possible.
 

Jefferson Durand

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2018
40
Just spitballing here, but I'm wondering what the AAV implications would be for a scenario in which we offer Kimbrel a 1 year deal that keeps us below the threshold (1 year, 7 million for the sake of argument). However, we add player options for 2020 and 2021 at 19m per year....maybe 2022 at 14m. The total value of the contract would be 3/45 or 4/54, assuming he'd opt into all of those. As PLAYER OPTIONS, he's in total control, so there's some appeal for him. However, because they are options, does the AAV applied to 2019 become 13.5m, or is it simply the 7m agreed upon?

The reason I bring this up, is not because I'm in panic mode regarding the bullpen. Nor is it because I'm particularly confident in Kimbrel's short or long-term future. It's more a question of how we can "game" the upper threshold if needed. Kikuchi's contract with the Mariners is complicated in its own right....but it represents an interesting approach to roster building.
-
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,864
Boston still has better starters, a more balanced lineup, and far better D on paper. Given that, I'm perfectly fine with the upside pen play.
Nobody’s giving up on the season. If you want to make the point that people are being hyperbolic don’t add hyperbole.

I’m curious how in the world the Red Sox can have a better lineup when they currently have no idea who is playing second base and their two catchers were outhit by a dozen pitchers.

The Red Sox certainly have the best starter, assuming a winter of rest healed his shoulder. I’m not sure there’s a big difference across the rest of the rotation though.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
671
Brooklyn via Chelmsford
Just spitballing here, but I'm wondering what the AAV implications would be for a scenario in which we offer Kimbrel a 1 year deal that keeps us below the threshold (1 year, 7 million for the sake of argument). However, we add player options for 2020 and 2021 at 19m per year....maybe 2022 at 14m. The total value of the contract would be 3/45 or 4/54, assuming he'd opt into all of those. As PLAYER OPTIONS, he's in total control, so there's some appeal for him. However, because they are options, does the AAV applied to 2019 become 13.5m, or is it simply the 7m agreed upon?
-
I'm not an expert on the salary cap, but I believe that Kimbrel's 2019 hit would be $15M in your 3-year scenario and $13.5M in your 4-year scenario. Both would put us over the magical $246M number that DD appears loathe to exceed. More importantly, I highly doubt that the Red Sox want Kimbrel back for that length at those dollars (which they would be risking by giving him player options). And Kimbrel's not likely to take the 1/7 or 1/9 (or any longer contract with a $7-9M AAV) that would keep the Red Sox under $246M in 2019.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,864
Exactly.

Also, sad as it may be that this has to be pointed out, but THE OFFSEASON IS NOT OVER.

DD, if he cares to, can still very well make moves. That Kimbrel guy hasn't signed, and there are still quite a few interesting FA relievers left, but hey, let's kvetch and concede the division already even though we've got 99% of the same roster as the greatest Red Sox team to ever exist already lined up.
Nobody is giving up the season. The team is gambling with the Division title by failing to construct an adequate bullpen, but I’d be shocked if they don’t at least make the gimmick game. Are there even 5 teams in the AL trying to win this year?

Also, with Kelly gone and Dombrowski again all but closing the door on Kimbrel, it’s well south of 99%.

Again, if you want to call out hyperbole, don’t add it.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,669
Santa Monica
Admittedly I haven't been following the Sox off-season closely so don't shoot me... BUT I wouldn't mind them trying some youngsters from the minors early in the season: Lakins, Shawaryn, Poyner, Hernandez.

I don't blame DD for not spending big money, multiple years for pen arms.

They have Brasier, Barnes, Hembree, Workman, Velazquez, B. Johnson, Wright, Thornburg. Try to create a closer from that group. Brasier or Barnes first up...

See what sticks the first two months of the season. Then make a trade if needed.
 

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nobody’s giving up on the season. If you want to make the point that people are being hyperbolic don’t add hyperbole.

I’m curious how in the world the Red Sox can have a better lineup when they currently have no idea who is playing second base and their two catchers were outhit by a dozen pitchers.
I'm curious how in the world you know they currently have no idea who is playing second base. I would wager that they have a pretty good idea and solid contingency plans. And the Yankees' cornerstone catcher batted .186 last season.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
2,987
CT
I wonder how much input Cora has on this bullpen construction and if he's actually OK with it rather than panicky
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,561
Admittedly I haven't been following the Sox off-season closely so don't shoot me... BUT I wouldn't mind them trying some youngsters from the minors early in the season: Lakins, Shawaryn, Poyner, Hernandez.

I don't blame DD for not spending big money, multiple years for pen arms.

They have Brasier, Barnes, Hembree, Workman, Velazquez, B. Johnson, Wright, Thornburg. Try to create a closer from that group. Brasier or Barnes first up...

See what sticks the first two months of the season. Then make a trade if needed.
If we’re assuming a bench of Pearce, Swihart, Leon, Nuñez (and a healthy Pedroia), that means we’ll have a 7-man pen, with five of those seven being guys who’d need to be on the MLB team all season or we’d risk losing them to waivers.

I really don’t think DD will start the season this way, but even if he does, one or more of those guys (Hembree, Johnson, Thornburg, Workman, Wright) will likely be traded or DFA’d by May. My guess is that only Thornburg, if he’s pitching terribly, would survive without being claimed.

You need more flexibility like that in the pen, and as you say, you might wanna bring up one of Lakins, Feltman, or Poyner at some point before August 1 without having to bump someone from the organization. Brasier and Barnes are optionable but they’re the two best guys you have, and the only other pitcher you can send down is EdRod.

So yeah, that’s why it seems like he’s really not done.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm a hundred percent not equating him to Justin Verlander, but what Ottavino did in between 2017 and 2018 was similar to what Verlander did when coming to HOU, using analytics, slo-mo video, etc, to drastically revamp his approach. There are a bunch of articles about it, this is probably the best one, but it is pay because it's The Athletic:

https://theathletic.com/316941/2018/04/18/sarris-the-art-and-science-of-designing-a-new-pitch-from-beginning-to-end-with-adam-ottavino/

And of course he could be a dud this year, anyone could. But there is reason to think last year wasn't a fluke. He definitely has issues, he walks too many guys and he allows a ton of SBs, but also his K/9 was 13.0. I think it's worth noting that NY targeted him over Robertson, who was quite good for them and very flexible in the way they used him, so that's how much they like Ottavino anyway.
This is a good answer, I appreciate the knowledge

For what it's worth, "several" would be more than two, but not many (OED: more than two or three, but not many; CAMBRIDGE: more than two and fewer than many). I think more than 5 would be too many, though admittedly, there is a vagueness to the term.
True, but no one here would call 3 "several", they'd call that "a few". I still haven't seen a list of 4 to make up that "several"
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,209
The wrong side of the bridge....
He's hard to figure out. He's doesn't have much of a split, was very good this past season, but was pretty bad the two seasons before that. It's hard to predict what he'll be this year at 35.
The biggest difference in terms of results is that in 2016 and 2017 he gave up home runs at a horrific rate (2.47 and 1.93 HR/9), and this year ]turned that all the way around to a very low rate of 0.23 HR/9.

Why did that happen? A couple of clues: he changed his pitch mix this year, scrapping his sinker and using his four-seamer more than in any year since 2014. He used his splitter a bit more as well, and his slider a lot less. As a result, he was throwing more strikes, and getting more swings and misses, especially on the splitter.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
547
Crapchester, NY
This is a good answer, I appreciate the knowledge

True, but no one here would call 3 "several", they'd call that "a few". I still haven't seen a list of 4 to make up that "several"
Chapman, Melancon, Davis, and Jansen. I understand that Melancon and Davis either lost the closer role or are in danger of doing so, however when they signed those contracts it was with the intention they would close.

I only cite these contracts because when I mentioned upthread that Eovaldi was an option at the back end the response was - who pays a closer $17mm a year?

There's probably also a chance (decreasing by the day) that Kimbrel joins this group salary-wise. So potentially there's your 5.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
547
Crapchester, NY
I will respectfully suggest that you've named 2.

And that we need Captain Eo in the rotation
I do not in any way disagree with you, I would vastly prefer he start.

That said - again, as presently constructed - I trust this lineup to win 8-6 games behind the likes of Johson or Velazquez a lot more than I trust this bullpen to hold a 2-1 lead behind Eovaldi.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,795
Maine
Chapman, Melancon, Davis, and Jansen. I understand that Melancon and Davis either lost the closer role or are in danger of doing so, however when they signed those contracts it was with the intention they would close.

I only cite these contracts because when I mentioned upthread that Eovaldi was an option at the back end the response was - who pays a closer $17mm a year?

There's probably also a chance (decreasing by the day) that Kimbrel joins this group salary-wise. So potentially there's your 5.
Here's the thing. Those guys got that money to close because they were closers. They'd done it, they were expected to be able to continue doing it, so teams ponied up because they thought the role was important enough to warrant that spending. Given that half of them have failed to perform as expected/desired, it suggests that perhaps spending that much for a closer isn't the wisest decision. It would seem that if paying that much for experienced closers is tenuous, then doing so for someone that has never performed in the role is even more so.

The Red Sox are paying Eovaldi that money because they feel he's worth it as a starter, as someone that, if healthy, is going to throw 160+ innings a year. It'd be one thing if circumstances resulted in Eovaldi stepping into the closer's spot. It's another for them to make a conscious decision to make him their first choice to perform in that capaciy.
I do not in any way disagree with you, I would vastly prefer he start.

That said - again, as presently constructed - I trust this lineup to win 8-6 games behind the likes of Johson or Velazquez a lot more than I trust this bullpen to hold a 2-1 lead behind Eovaldi.
If they're scoring 8 runs in support of a starting Velazquez or Johnson, why are we assuming they will only scoring two runs in support of a starting Eovaldi? Seems a broken premise to start with. What about the confidence in Eovaldi handing an 8-1 lead to the bullpen?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,917
Somewhere
The lack of urgency in signing free agents indicates that the Sox are optimistic about Thornburg, at the very least.

I wouldn't mind a speculative bargain bin signing like Oliver Perez.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
547
Crapchester, NY
Here's the thing. Those guys got that money to close because they were closers. They'd done it, they were expected to be able to continue doing it, so teams ponied up because they thought the role was important enough to warrant that spending. Given that half of them have failed to perform as expected/desired, it suggests that perhaps spending that much for a closer isn't the wisest decision. It would seem that if paying that much for experienced closers is tenuous, then doing so for someone that has never performed in the role is even more so.

The Red Sox are paying Eovaldi that money because they feel he's worth it as a starter, as someone that, if healthy, is going to throw 160+ innings a year. It'd be one thing if circumstances resulted in Eovaldi stepping into the closer's spot. It's another for them to make a conscious decision to make him their first choice to perform in that capaciy.


If they're scoring 8 runs in support of a starting Velazquez or Johnson, why are we assuming they will only scoring two runs in support of a starting Eovaldi? Seems a broken premise to start with. What about the confidence in Eovaldi handing an 8-1 lead to the bullpen?
It is not smart to pay a closer $17mm per. Their plan is undoubtedly to have Eovaldi start. Can't argue with either.

However, I believe there is a problem and it will become evident very quickly once the season starts. Some here believe that the bullpen is fine as is. I just don't see that. They'll need a solution and all I am doing is suggesting what the solution will be since apparently they don't want to add any more payroll and they don't want to dip into their already limited prospect pool to fix it.

I hope I'm wrong and someone pulls a 2013 Koji.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
2,877
That's not what you said. What you said was that the only thing that made sense was to make Eovaldi the closer.



Some combination of Brach, Allen, Madson. If the team is in contention in July and the bullpen is a weakness, make a trade.

The bullpen won't be the best thing about the team. But it'll be OK.
I still think Sipp is a sleeper.
Out of the four, I would be most comfortable with Sipp and Madson, despite the fact that both are in their mid 30s. Both Allen and (to a lesser degree) Brach have shown drops in velocity over the past year, and I'm concerned the loss of effectiveness may be driven by such downward trends. In fact I would avoid Cody Allen entirely, since his downward velocity trend has been consistent for several years.
Both Sipp and Madson have no such trends (in fact Madson's velocity was UP last year), so I see them as more likely to improve upon their 2018 performance.

Of course, Ryan Madson is 38 and may decide to retire again.

EDIT: Nevermind, I got my wish. I failed to see that cody allen signed with the angels.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,795
Maine
Out of the four, I would be most comfortable with Sipp and Madson, despite the fact that both are in their mid 30s. Both Allen and (to a lesser degree) Brach have shown drops in velocity over the past year, and I'm concerned the loss of effectiveness may be driven by such downward trends. In fact I would avoid Cody Allen entirely, since his downward velocity trend has been consistent for several years.
Both Sipp and Madson have no such trends (in fact Madson's velocity was UP last year), so I see them as more likely to improve upon their 2018 performance.

Of course, Ryan Madson is 38 and may decide to retire again.
Allen is (fortunately?) off the board for this year, signing with the Angels for 1/8.5 plus incentives.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,939
Here are some options that may end up being of the "kind of bargain basement, but with some ability" variety:

Tyler Clippard (33): 3.67 era, 1.17 whip, 11.1 k/9 in 2018. Bad in 2017, but prior to that, has been a very reliable reliever. Career 3.16 era, 1.13 whip, 10.0 k/9.

Brad Boxberger (30): 4.39 era, 1.43 whip, 12.0 k/9 in 2018. Volatile. Very good in 2017 (3.38 era, 1.16 whip, 12.3 k/9). Sign him cheaply and hope he's good Boxberger?

Greg Holland (33): 4.66 era, 1.62 whip, 9.1 k/9 in 2018. Obviously a pretty terrible season. But from 2011-2017, he put up this line: 2.39 era, 1.10 whip, 12.0 k/9, and 186 saves, so he has lots of closing experience. Might be worth a flier. Relievers can be up and down and it's clear he has some ability. How much left in the tank?

Alex Wilson (32): 3.36 era, 1.05 whip, 6.3 k/9 in 2018. Not a strikeout pitcher, but he's had a solid career as a reliever: 3.23 era, 1.19 whip, 6.0 k/9.

Justin Wilson (31): 3.46 era, 1.43 whip, 11.4 k/9 in 2018. Strikeout pitcher. Not a good whip in 2018, but he's been pretty good over his career. Career #s: 3.33 era, 1.27 whip, 9.9 k/9. Lefty who is more than a LOOGY.

Hunter Strickland (30): 3.97 era, 1.41 whip, 7.3 k/9 in 2018. Again, big whip. But his career numbers are pretty solid: 2.91 era, 1.19 whip, 8.4 k/9.

So it's not like there aren't any MLB quality relievers out there still. I don't know that these are the guys you want in the playoffs facing Carrasco, Altuve, and Bregman, but for the regular season, these guys would be perfectly fine I think.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,009
Paradoxically, I think the focus has to be on people you've never heard of. It appears that DD's approach is that various people you've never heard of are just as likely to deliver an acceptable performance as most of those you have heard of, but at a fraction of the cost.
 

nvalvo

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,625
Rogers Park
Assuming DD isn’t posturing, I don’t understand why we’re making a fetish of the LT threshold at this point on the success cycle. We have an incredible roster *right now.*

But we are far from the Tribe scenario, where no one else in our division is within ten wins of us in the projections. NY and TB look like excellent teams, also.

So maybe DD’s about to splash on Kimbrel, or trade Michael Chavis to SF for both Watson and Smith. Or maybe he wants to see where we are at the deadline before crossing that line for pen help. If *crosses self* *knocks on wood* *invokes the Virgin* Sale and Betts get hurt in May, we’ll be glad to be under the cap.

But it feels like the pen needs work, and it doesn’t feel like payroll should be an impediment.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Nobody is giving up the season. The team is gambling with the Division title by failing to construct an adequate bullpen, but I’d be shocked if they don’t at least make the gimmick game. Are there even 5 teams in the AL trying to win this year?

Also, with Kelly gone and Dombrowski again all but closing the door on Kimbrel, it’s well south of 99%.

Again, if you want to call out hyperbole, don’t add it.
If you don't begin with bullshit hyperbole, you wouldn't get it back.

The team is not gambling with the division title, because the division title is not a chip you just hold in your hand, nor is the process as simple as "sign Adam Ottavino, profit."

I generally don't root for injuries, but given the guy has been guaranteed his money, I hope his elbow blows up on Opening Day so people like you can understand the variability of baseball and stop speaking in absolutes as if you (and only you) have it all figured out.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,644
I still expect Kimbrel or Brach in a Sox uniform by spring training day 1.

I won't worry until Opening Day - a lot of shuffling can happen in ST too.
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,561
If you don't begin with bullshit hyperbole, you wouldn't get it back.

The team is not gambling with the division title, because the division title is not a chip you just hold in your hand, nor is the process as simple as "sign Adam Ottavino, profit."

I generally don't root for injuries, but given the guy has been guaranteed his money, I hope his elbow blows up on Opening Day so people like you can understand the variability of baseball and stop speaking in absolutes as if you (and only you) have it all figured out.
I'm not as pessimistic about the pen as P91, but he's not "speaking in absolutes" here. He's making a reasonable, if maybe too short-sighted argument using the data available.

You hammer this inane, anti-informational, anti-planning, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!!-style point in virtually every post you make, and you frequently misrepresent the post you aim to criticize. Of course there's variability in baseball and predictions can often be wrong -- that's what makes it fun -- but what's the matter with looking at and interpreting the data we have handy?

The data says the Red Sox do not presently have a very good or flexible bullpen. Ottavino is something like the reliever version of J.D. Martinez and DD was obviously in on him, so to see him go to our rivals for an extremely reasonable contract is annoying.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
I'm not as pessimistic about the pen as P91, but he's not "speaking in absolutes" here. He's making a reasonable, if maybe too short-sighted argument using the data available.

You hammer this inane, anti-informational, anti-planning, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!!-style point in virtually every post you make, and you frequently misrepresent the post you aim to criticize. Of course there's variability in baseball and predictions can often be wrong -- that's what makes it fun -- but what's the matter with looking at and interpreting the data we have handy?

The data says the Red Sox do not presently have a very good or flexible bullpen. Ottavino is something like the reliever version of J.D. Martinez and DD was obviously in on him, so to see him go to our rivals for an extremely reasonable contract is annoying.
Things you do not know - the performance of the 2019 bullpen. Stop acting as if you do.

Adam Ottavino is not even in the same stratosphere of need or value as J.D. Martinez. Tyler Thornburg could very easily outperform Ottavino next season and it wouldn't be shocking whatsoever, there was literally nobody else available, in our system, through trade, or as FAs, that could've provided what J.D. did.

Thank you and come again.
 
Last edited: