Robertson is looking for Papelbon money and years. Not sure it would be worth it to the Sox if Miller money was too much. There are other options (fill in name here) that could be added that would not cost as much. There is a solid group presently on the team Uehara, Tazawa. and Mujica (Did I just say that) that needs augmenting.jimbobim said:Heyman and Carfardo just reported that the Red Sox were willing to go 4 years for Miller just not the same guaranteed money. The Astros supposedly had a 3 /39 out for Robertson last week.
If Robertson truly values the years over money might be worth giving him 7 mil per over 4 4 v 28 with a chance to reach Miller's guarantee if he stacks up some games finished when Koji needs a breather or retires.
Robertson get long term commitment good money and big AL East stage as opposed to the Astros. Red Sox I think may lose another pick down in the 4th but their first is protected.
Koji Robertson Tazawa Mujica Workman layne and another lefty ? Would be pretty solid and versatile.
Robertson has always been really tough on lefties. If we were willing to go 4/32 on Miller, I don't see why we wouldn't offer that to Robertson. He has a longer and steadier track-record.jimbobim said:If Robertson truly values the years over money might be worth giving him 7 mil per over 4 4 v 28 with a chance to reach Miller's guarantee if he stacks up some games finished when Koji needs a breather or retires.
If he'd accept 4/$36 like Miller I'd be willing to take a shot. I was under the impression, I could be wrong, he was looking for 4/$12.5 which seems a tad too much. I image the Houston offer of 4/$40 would be acceptable. He would certainly take pressure off Uehara and be available when Koji retires.Hee Sox Choi said:Robertson has always been really tough on lefties. If we were willing to go 4/32 on Miller, I don't see why we wouldn't offer that to Robertson. He has a longer and steadier track-record.
OPS vs. Ls: 2012 - .575 / 2013 - .484 / 2014 - .441
Who cares if we give up a 3rd or 4th rounder or whatever for him?
CSteinhardt said:We have too much talent in the minors and not enough spots in the rotation, and ticking clocks to find out what those players can do at the major league level. We also have a roster crunch because of those prospects, which is an impediment to bringing in anybody new. Isn't the obvious answer that we use the available bullpen slots to get more information and more use out of players already on the 40-man at the start of the season, and then look at external options midseason when we have more information about exactly what's necessary?
It's very likely that some players counted on as key contributors will be busts in 2015, and it's also very likely that one or two of the players already on our 40-man will be good enough to earn key roles. That's pretty much the way that bullpens work every year, which is one of the reasons that it's stupid to pay for non-premium talent simply because a reliever is experienced. Similarly, it's easier to quickly cut bait when a rookie struggles for a couple of weeks than when it's a veteran brought in for 2/8 or a similar contract, as we've seen in the past. I suspect that we have enough talent at our disposal that the bullpen will be a strength once it shakes out, and that the most effective use of the resources already on the 40-man is to be willing to spend April finding out which pieces should go in which spots.
Incidentally, this is a question that should be answered IMO anytime somebody suggests a new signing -- who are you planning on taking off the 40-man in order to accommodate them? For a high-end starter or Miller, it's worth losing talent from the end of the roster, but it's probably not worth it to add, say, Pat Neshek (very likely to regress), Sergio Romo, etc. when you combine not just the contract but the useful cost-controlled player that the organization will lose in return for what may well be no upgrade over the best of what we already have on our 40-man. Because of the roster crunch, which gets worse if we do add a couple of high-end starters, we should think about any signing as costing us the equivalent of a sandwich pick, not just a player who received a QO.
Holland has two years of control left and is likely to get relatively expensive. He has the saves to make money in arbitration and you're looking at probably paying him around 2/18 (WAG).RedOctober3829 said:Thinking outside the box: what about using some trade chips for Greg Holland?
Ken Rosenthal:
Royals setup man Wade Davis and closer Greg Holland also are attracting trade interest, and it's possible one of them could be traded for a hitter.
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/andrew-miller-sergio-romo-luke-gregerson-hot-stove-market-for-other-setup-men-heating-up-120614
In a vacuum? Yes, I'd Holland in a heartbeat.Toe Nash said:Is that too much different than just giving Miller 4/$40 with no player or pick compensation? Is Holland that much better or predictable going forward? I don't see it.
Holland would be brought in to close. Koji can then be used as a relief ace in whatever part of the game he is most needed and doesn't have to be overused in every closing situation. Tazawa, Uehara, and Holland is a very good back end.Rudy Pemberton said:Acquiring Holland and using him as a set up man isn't going to go over well with him or his agent, and Uehara isn't really an option to be used as a set up man, is he? I also suspect the cost would be high. Davis seems like the guy KC should move and I'm sure Cespedes for him is something they'd consider, but don't the Sox really need to be using their assets for starters, not relievers?
The Nationals are “likely” to trade setup man Tyler Clippard, a source tells FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal. MLBTR’s Matt Swartz projects Clippard will earn $9.3MM in his final year of arbitration eligibility before hitting the free agent market following the 2015 season, and with closer Drew Storen projected to land a $5.8MM contract as well, moving Clippard would allow the Nats to save some money at the back of their bullpen.
Wasn't that pretty much his role before he got the closer gig?Rudy Pemberton said:Gotcha, I just question whether Uehara could be used in such a role where he'd have to get ready quickly, pitch so frequently, etc.
But...why?MakMan44 said:Tyler Clippard is also said to be available
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/andrew-miller-sergio-romo-luke-gregerson-hot-stove-market-for-other-setup-men-heating-up-120614
In a vacuum? Yes, I'd Holland in a heartbeat.
Holland has been an impact 2-3 win reliever the past three years because of his ridiculous k rate. He is an absolute stud relief ace, 2nd to maybe Kimbrel or Ue in the recent past. They would have him for two years before free agency. He's worth giving up pieces for because they have an overflowing 40 man roster and players need to go somewhere. If the cost is prohibitive then that's one thing, but teams do stupid things over deadline deals and the Red Sox aren't under that time pressure.Toe Nash said:But...why?
It seems agreed he'd cost a decent amount in prospects or players to acquire him. Yes, he's been very good. 1.83 FIP over his last 3 seasons. But Miller has a 2.37 FIP over his last 3. Robertson is a 2.59. We're talking just a couple runs difference over a season. For the playoffs yeah Holland is great to have, but you can always trade for relievers mid-season if you are in playoff position (see Miller) and you have a better idea that they're going to be helpful than you do right now.
I think they should acquire someone who they can reasonably project for a sub-3 ERA in 60+ IP, but I don't know why they should send good players for that guy when he's not under team control for a while or has an undervalued contract. They'd be buying high on a guy coming off a deep playoff run who can't reasonably be expected to keep it up at near the same level.
I argued for signing Miller but that would just cost money. I don't want to give up good prospects or good picks for a reliever. They should be looking elsewhere on the FA market or for a lesser trade target like Bastardo.
Because in a vacuum he's been a better pitcher than Miller over the last 4 years. You're adding in acquisition costs, I wasn't.Toe Nash said:But...why?
It seems agreed he'd cost a decent amount in prospects or players to acquire him. Yes, he's been very good. 1.83 FIP over his last 3 seasons. But Miller has a 2.37 FIP over his last 3. Robertson is a 2.59. We're talking just a couple runs difference over a season. For the playoffs yeah Holland is great to have, but you can always trade for relievers mid-season if you are in playoff position (see Miller) and you have a better idea that they're going to be helpful than you do right now.
I think they should acquire someone who they can reasonably project for a sub-3 ERA in 60+ IP, but I don't know why they should send good players for that guy when he's not under team control for a while or has an undervalued contract. They'd be buying high on a guy coming off a deep playoff run who can't reasonably be expected to keep it up at near the same level.
I argued for signing Miller but that would just cost money. I don't want to give up good prospects or good picks for a reliever. They should be looking elsewhere on the FA market or for a lesser trade target like Bastardo.
MakMan44 said:Because in a vacuum he's been a better pitcher than Miller over the last 4 years. You're adding in acquisition costs, I wasn't.
You asked if Holland would be better or more reliable than Miller. I think he will be, his track record suggest so and all things being equal, of course I take Holland over Miller.
MakMan44 said:Are there any high leverage LH relievers on the market though?
MakMan44 said:Are there any high leverage LH relievers on the market though?
I'm just throwing Elbert in here as someone I'd target as a potential reclamation project, a guy with a chance to be a second lefty in someone's pen thanks to a sweepy slider and tough delivery to pick up. The Dodgers outrighted him off their 40-man roster the other day, justifiably so as he's been hurt more than he's been healthy and his stuff was down in September. But this is how relievers are made, or sometimes found: a failed starter and a guy with injury issues who had to toil in Albuquerque when he actually was healthy enough to pitch.
This is my own speculation here, but Chapman heads into arbitration with 113 career saves, a career strikeout rate at 43 percent, an ERA in 2014 of 2.00 (and an even lower FIP) and he just posted the best single-season strikeout rate in MLB history. How would you like to argue against him in that hearing? And if you're the Reds, are you willing to commit that much money to one pitcher who might throw 60 innings for you when you already have $80 million committed to 11 other players and have Todd Frazier, Mat Latos and Devin Mesoraco heading to arbitration? Trading Chapman would be shocking but would free up some money for GM Walt Jocketty to address some other critical needs without giving up any of his starting pitching depth. I doubt it happens, but it makes some sense for a team with this low of a payroll.
Remember how much demand there was for Balfour last winter? I believe you could get him for a song right now, assuming you'll take on the $7 million he's owed. I'm not saying you should, mind you, just that you could if you felt like it.
Rob Bradford @bradfo 5s5 seconds ago
Red Sox looking at Gregerson as possible fit in bullpen. Nothing imminent but makes some sense
http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2014/12/9/7361355/source-phillies-red-sox-discussed-antonio-bastardo-for-sean-coyleSAN DIEGO -- The Red Sox and Phillies have had discussions this offseason about a deal that would send left-hander Antonio Bastardo to Boston in exchange for a package involving infield prospect Sean Coyle, according to a major-league source with knowledge of the situation. It is unclear if those talks are still progressing, though the teams are known to be in contact due to Boston's continued interest in both Bastardo and Cole Hamels.
SAN DIEGO -- The Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies haven't gotten very far in trade talks involving starter Cole Hamels, but they have made progress on a smaller deal involving some relief help for the Red Sox.
Mulitple industry sources have confirmed that the two teams have discussed a possible trade that would net the Sox lefthander Antonio Bastardo in exchange for infield prospect Sean Coyle.
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/red-sox-phillies-discussing-deal-involving-bastardo
Corsi said:Bastardo is due to be a free agent in 2016.
Biogenesis thingThe Celtbot said:Apparently he was suspended for 50 games in 2013?
MakMan44 said:Biogenesis thing
Coyle is a nice piece but he wasn't going to move the needle in any significant trade, I think. If he can bring back a reliever like Bastardo, who can pitch to both lefties and righties, that's probably a nice return. I agree with DDB that his walk rate is a bit higher than I'm comfortable with, but I'd be pretty happy with the return.The Celtbot said:
Not sure how I feel about him then. His numbers seem to be all over the place and that steroid issue doesn't help his case.
MakMan44 said:Bastardo's ERA/xFIP are all over the map the last 4 years. His FIP has been pretty steady though as well as his K/9 and BB/9. Not the first guy I would think of as a set up LHP but going by his 2014 splits, he certainly looks like a guy who can pitch to both LHH & RHH. For just Coyle, I think it would be a pretty solid deal.
I like Bastardo a lot. His splits as shown above are even and it helps in the East to have a lefty that can punch out hitters. I believe Farrell could tweak one or two things and get him to be a competent Miller replacement. But my question is does anyone really believe Amaro would settle for just Coyle? It was probably discussed, Amaro probably asked for Betts and was promptly hung up on. I'm interested in seeing some internal options for a lefty. Escobar might be an option.Sprowl said:
I think that's the key feature that makes Bastardo a viable LH reliever for the Red Sox -- while he's not a dominating reliever like Miller, he can face LRL stretches without reducing his manager and teammates to conniptions. Neither Layne nor Britton can give that assurance.
Bastardo career OPS vLH .621, v RH .644.
Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports that the Astros have signed reliever Luke Gregerson to a three-year, $18.5 million contract.
The Astros fell short in their bids for Andrew Miller and David Robertson, but Gregerson is a pretty good Plan B. The 30-year-old owns a 2.75 career ERA, including a 2.12 ERA and 59/15 K/BB ratio over 72 1/3 innings this past season. He has mostly served as a set-up man in his career, but he should be the early favorite to close for Houston in 2015.
Deal is done apparently. Neshek gets 2 years.Corsi said:Cross these two guys off the list
Bob Nightengale @BNightengale 34s34 seconds ago
The Houston #Astros, who tried to sign Andrew Miller and David Robertson, now closing in on Pat Neshek after Gregerson"s $18.5 million deal