Chris Sale (plus $17mil) traded to Atlanta for Vaughn Grissom

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
Not sure how much bad luck, he hasn't been hitting the ball very hard at all.

Meanwhile, Chris Sale shoved again tonight, 7 shutout innings, 9 k’s. AA really pulled off a heist here. I’d sure love to know what Sale trades he tried before with Chaim that got turned down. Would not be surprised if Chaim didn’t like Grissom but Breslow comes in with no attachment at all to his player and takes the first deal he’s offered for him. I wonder how John Henry feels about paying the bill for these starts.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
815
(Although I'm not sure if you realize Sale is basically a 6th starter on the Braves, with the extra days of rest he's getting. So looking at his 2024 and imagining he's on the Sox isn't quite apples-to-apples.)
Sale has made 8 starts and leads the Braves in innings. It's like you're trying to...gaslight or something.
 
Last edited:

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
(Although I'm not sure if you realize Sale is basically a 6th starter on the Braves, with the extra days of rest he's getting. So looking at his 2024 and imagining he's on the Sox isn't quite apples-to-apples.)
Sale has made 8 starts and leads the Braves in innings. Not sure if you realize. Edit: It's like you're trying to...gaslight or something.
Sale:
1 start on 4 days of rest.​
3 on 5 days of rest.​
3 on 6 days of rest.​
Compare to Houck:​
4 starts on 4 days of rest.​
2 on 5 days of rest.​
1 on 6 days of rest.​
Or Crawford:​
4 on 4 days of rest.​
4 on 5 days of rest.​
Sale is likely benefiting from getting extra rest in a way he wouldn't have were he in the Sox rotation. So it's not quite apples-to-apples.
 
Last edited:

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
Sale:
1 start on 4 days of rest.​
3 on 5 days of rest.​
3 on 6 days of rest.​
Compare to Houck:​
4 starts on 4 days of rest.​
2 on 5 days of rest.​
1 on 6 days of rest.​
Or Crawford:​
4 on 4 days of rest.​
4 on 5 days of rest.​
Sale is likely benefiting from getting extra rest in a way he wouldn't have were he in the Sox rotation. So it's not quite apples-to-apples.
It still doesn’t make sense to call Sale a 6th starter though. Pretty sure most of the Braves rotation is also getting extra rest, due to the schedule they’ve had.
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
Even if he's healthy and performs, a guy like Sale imposes a tradeoff on a roster like ours: playing time we give him isn't playing time we're using to identify future rotation mainstays. This winter, people here wanted Houck (controllable through 2028) in the pen because he couldn't face a lineup three times. People here still want Whitlock (2027) in the pen. By the end of this season, both of those guys, along with Crawford (2029) and Bello (2030) will look like the anchors of our rotation.
Not sure we can say Whitlock looks like a rotation anchor at this point given he’s once again missing time with injuries. If anything, they should be closer to finally ending the Whitlock starting experiment and put him back in the bullpen.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It still doesn’t make sense to call Sale a 6th starter though. Pretty sure most of the Braves rotation is also getting extra rest, due to the schedule they’ve had.
They've had their injuries as well. But regardless of what you'd prefer to call it, there's been reporting on how ATL's plan was to skip side-sessions and go easy on Sale so that he'd be available later in the season and in the post-season. As opposed to relying on him like a horse to get them to the post-season by racking up wins.

Of course that was before they lost Strider, but they're still going easy on Sale and enjoying the results.

Overall though, the point is that one can't simply say a player would be doing the same thing on a different team. It's never quite apples to apples. More so when handling and actual use would be different. That doesn't preclude the possibility Sale might have had a good (or as good) a year on the Sox.
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
268
Feels like a number of things can be true:
  • 2B was an area of need coming into this season. Grissom is a very promising young player though by no means a lock to be a long-term solution. That said, Sox have a glut of MI options emerging in the minors, so if Grissom does ultimately have a Dalbec-ian season, they can eye an internal replacement next season.
  • Sale has not been dependable health-wise. Some may say it's not a sign of him actually being "injury prone." That said, between the consistency of recent injuries for Sale and his age, I think it was a reasonable assessment by the Sox FO that there is a decent chance he cannot be depended on for the entire season (likely to miss a month+ in total).
  • If Sale and Grissom both hit their upper 99% projection, that probably is a fully healthy season for Sale and contending for CYA, with Grissom having something like a 20/20 season and 850 OPS. Braves probably come out ahead in a vacuum for this season, but it's really a win for both teams this season considering need (and how Sox SP have performed) and the years of control for Grissom likely makes it a long-term win for Sox.
  • I do think there is maybe a change of scenery element helping Sale. He is a fiery competitor and I think he likely has extra motivation to prove himself even more this season. Plus, some of his quotes after recent injuries on the Sox were very down and borderline depressing. Obviously not really quantifiable (aside from ballpark factors) but I do think this is maybe a slight element. Not to mention the point @Rovin Romine is making with regard to expectations, etc.
  • While Sale would be a plus for the Sox, SP has literally been the biggest strength of the Sox this season (gotta say it would have been fun to see what Bailey could do with Sale though).
  • It's May 15. Grissom just started playing, coming off injury + flu. And if you think part of the calculus in trading Sale is his durability, it is ridiculous to make any judgment on this trade right now aside from "hey, Sale is pitching very well, Grissom has struggled in a small number of at bats."
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
7,297
Salem, NH
Not sure how much bad luck, he hasn't been hitting the ball very hard at all.

Meanwhile, Chris Sale shoved again tonight, 7 shutout innings, 9 k’s. AA really pulled off a heist here. I’d sure love to know what Sale trades he tried before with Chaim that got turned down. Would not be surprised if Chaim didn’t like Grissom but Breslow comes in with no attachment at all to his player and takes the first deal he’s offered for him. I wonder how John Henry feels about paying the bill for these starts.
Even if Sale wins the Cy Young Award, I don’t think you can call this trade a heist without knowing what Grissom is going to do between now and… what, 2028 or 2029?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Not sure how much bad luck, he hasn't been hitting the ball very hard at all.

Meanwhile, Chris Sale shoved again tonight, 7 shutout innings, 9 k’s. AA really pulled off a heist here. I’d sure love to know what Sale trades he tried before with Chaim that got turned down. Would not be surprised if Chaim didn’t like Grissom but Breslow comes in with no attachment at all to his player and takes the first deal he’s offered for him. I wonder how John Henry feels about paying the bill for these starts.
Hopefully Henry doesn't overreact to every box score and understands that they traded out of a right-now window with a health-challenged pitcher on a one year deal into a long term window for a position player at a position of need. Also I'm not sure how attached Bloom was to Sale, he just wasn't healthy enough at any point in Bloom's time here to be traded to anyone.
 
Last edited:

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,063
Feels like a number of things can be true:
  • 2B was an area of need coming into this season. Grissom is a very promising young player though by no means a lock to be a long-term solution. That said, Sox have a glut of MI options emerging in the minors, so if Grissom does ultimately have a Dalbec-ian season, they can eye an internal replacement next season.
  • Sale has not been dependable health-wise. Some may say it's not a sign of him actually being "injury prone." That said, between the consistency of recent injuries for Sale and his age, I think it was a reasonable assessment by the Sox FO that there is a decent chance he cannot be depended on for the entire season (likely to miss a month+ in total).
  • If Sale and Grissom both hit their upper 99% projection, that probably is a fully healthy season for Sale and contending for CYA, with Grissom having something like a 20/20 season and 850 OPS. Braves probably come out ahead in a vacuum for this season, but it's really a win for both teams this season considering need (and how Sox SP have performed) and the years of control for Grissom likely makes it a long-term win for Sox.
  • I do think there is maybe a change of scenery element helping Sale. He is a fiery competitor and I think he likely has extra motivation to prove himself even more this season. Plus, some of his quotes after recent injuries on the Sox were very down and borderline depressing. Obviously not really quantifiable (aside from ballpark factors) but I do think this is maybe a slight element. Not to mention the point @Rovin Romine is making with regard to expectations, etc.
  • While Sale would be a plus for the Sox, SP has literally been the biggest strength of the Sox this season (gotta say it would have been fun to see what Bailey could do with Sale though).
  • It's May 15. Grissom just started playing, coming off injury + flu. And if you think part of the calculus in trading Sale is his durability, it is ridiculous to make any judgment on this trade right now aside from "hey, Sale is pitching very well, Grissom has struggled in a small number of at bats."
Agree with every word here.
Way too early to know what we have in Grissom.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,302
Even if he's healthy and performs, a guy like Sale imposes a tradeoff on a roster like ours: playing time we give him isn't playing time we're using to identify future rotation mainstays. This winter, people here wanted Houck (controllable through 2028) in the pen because he couldn't face a lineup three times. People here still want Whitlock (2027) in the pen. By the end of this season, both of those guys, along with Crawford (2029) and Bello (2030) will look like the anchors of our rotation.
I thought it was a very good trade at the time and I still do. It's hard to expect a ton out of Grissom right out of the gate given the injuries and sickness he had this offseason, in addition to getting acclimated at the major league level.

However, calling all 4 of those guys "anchors" of a 5 man rotation kind of cheapens the meaning of "anchor"
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
And way too early to know what Braves have in Sale.
We have over a decade of data on what Chris Sale is when he’s healthy. And even when not 100%, he’s still pretty damn good. The jury is more out on the likes of Houck, Whitlock etc than it is Sale. Sale has done it before, many times over!
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
We have over a decade of data on what Chris Sale is when he’s healthy. And even when not 100%, he’s still pretty damn good. The jury is more out on the likes of Houck, Whitlock etc than it is Sale. Sale has done it before, many times over!
So you want to pay him $27m for the same production that we are currently getting from Houck (1.5 bWAR) at whatever he got in ARB this winter? And this is the tradeoff, because Houck was the last guy added to the rotation.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
So you want to pay him $27m for the same production that we are currently getting from Houck (1.5 bWAR) at whatever he got in ARB this winter? And this is the tradeoff, because Houck was the last guy added to the rotation.
They've already had to have 6 bullpen games this year which they went 2-4 in. If they had Sale the other guys still would have gotten hurt, and Houck would still be contributing, either in the rotation or the bullpen. Who knows what their record would be, but in no way is that the tradeoff
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,117
Rogers Park
We have over a decade of data on what Chris Sale is when he’s healthy. And even when not 100%, he’s still pretty damn good. The jury is more out on the likes of Houck, Whitlock etc than it is Sale. Sale has done it before, many times over!
Not sure we can say Whitlock looks like a rotation anchor at this point given he’s once again missing time with injuries. If anything, they should be closer to finally ending the Whitlock starting experiment and put him back in the bullpen.
Are past pitching injuries predictive of future injuries, or are they not? If I understand you right, you’re taking one side of that argument for Sale (we can exclude his recent injured seasons with the caveat “when healthy”) and the other for Whitlock. Whitlock’s been pretty great “when healthy,” too. Should the Braves move Sale to the bullpen?

It doesn’t really mean anything, but Sale himself came up as a reliever—zero games started in the minors before his debut—because the player dev folks and some of the coaches in Chicago assumed that he was too thin to start and wouldn’t hold up physically in that role. They put him in the rotation in 2012, but almost pulled him after an excellent month because he had some soreness and they had no closer. I’m not sure what changed, but they moved him back to the rotation after one relief appearance and he went on to be the fourth-best SP in baseball over the next ten years.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
They've already had to have 6 bullpen games this year which they went 2-4 in. If they had Sale the other guys still would have gotten hurt, and Houck would still be contributing, either in the rotation or the bullpen. Who knows what their record would be, but in no way is that the tradeoff
They didn't have four injured starters when the trade was made. I get your point that in hindsight it might have been nice to have Sale still, but if you are trying to evaluate the trade as it was made, they didn't know they'd need nine starters by May 1.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
815
They didn't have four injured starters when the trade was made. I get your point that in hindsight it might have been nice to have Sale still, but if you are trying to evaluate the trade as it was made, they didn't know they'd need nine starters by May 1.
Of course they didn't know that, but what happened to the old adage "You can never have enough pitching?"
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Of course they didn't know that, but what happened to the old adage "You can never have enough pitching?"
It certainly remains true! But the only viable solution to the four-starters-down scenario is for you to have MLB-ready depth in the minors. If you have Houck in the bullpen, not stretched out, he can jump in as an opener but not a starter, at least at first. As it happens, the Sox did have Criswell stashed away, so in hindsight you could say they had seven starters ready until Giolito got hurt, which is a pretty reasonable approach. Had they kept Sale, I don't know that they could have had Houck starting in AAA.

Whatever I said previously about getting name starters, ultimately I'm happy with whoever is preventing runs, just because the long term viability of any pitcher is so unpredictable. Not spending sums on short-termers like Sale that make other transactions harder feels like a win. Loved Sale pre-injury though, or even mid-injury when he closed out 2018. Zero disrespect intended.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,465
Of course they didn't know that, but what happened to the old adage "You can never have enough pitching?"
Given the last few seasons, I think that Breslow was somewhat reluctant to include Sale among either the "too much" or the "pitching."
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
6,692
Of course they didn't know that, but what happened to the old adage "You can never have enough pitching?"
The Red Sox got six years of control for a second baseman who will hopefully be a cornerstone player. The Sox gave up one year of a guy who, regardless of how hard he's struggled to stay on the field, is 35 and by virtue of that alone could fall off a cliff in terms of performance at any moment. That's good business. You don't get something for nothing.

It'd be really nice to have Sale, but the Red Sox have the best ERA+ by 20 points (151 versus 131!). More pitching would be great, but they've got plenty of depth pitching-wise, too.

This just isn't that hard, I don't think. The Sox made a bit of a gamble that Grissom, based on his exceptional minor league performance, is going to be a star or a very good player for them for a long time. The Braves made a bet that Sale will stay healthy and bolster their rotation. Given that they've already got an elite second baseman, it's a gamble they could afford to make.
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
Are past pitching injuries predictive of future injuries, or are they not? If I understand you right, you’re taking one side of that argument for Sale (we can exclude his recent injured seasons with the caveat “when healthy”) and the other for Whitlock. Whitlock’s been pretty great “when healthy,” too. Should the Braves move Sale to the bullpen?
I would say that a broken finger from a line drive, a broken wrist from a bike fall are not predictive of future injuries, no.
 

GB5

New Member
Aug 26, 2013
714
Cornerstone may be a bit aggressive on Grissom. ATL has a good history in the past decade of self evaluating their own players. If they truly believed that Grissom was a cornerstone type player I doubt they would have traded him for a frequently and oft injured Sale on a one year deal. Yes they are at a different point in their championship window than the Sox and may be willing to pay a little extra for the “one piece” to put them over the top, but…
 

strek1

Run, Forrest, run!
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
32,838
Hartford area
So you want to pay him $27m for the same production that we are currently getting from Houck (1.5 bWAR) at whatever he got in ARB this winter? And this is the tradeoff, because Houck was the last guy added to the rotation.
Well we're already paying $17 million toward the $27.5 million remaining on Sale's contract.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,117
Rogers Park
I would say that a broken finger from a line drive, a broken wrist from a bike fall are not predictive of future injuries, no.
I mostly agree with this, but Sale did have some ominous-sounding shoulder issues and a TJS. It sounds like your unspoken implication is that Whitlock's injuries are at least a little bit predictive.

He has had a TJS (in the minors with the Yankees) and a pretty serious hip injury that eventually led to surgery. This last one was an oblique strain. Many posters seem sure that the injuries are related to his role, but I'm not sure I see the causal logic beyond the coincidence in time; i.e., it's definitely true that he was starting when the hip first cropped up. But would he have avoided this last oblique injury in the bullpen? Maybe one of our doctors can chime in, but I'd have to be at least somewhat confident that he'd be healthier in the pen to want to move him. If it were a series of arm injuries, that would be different in my view. Am I hanging too much on that distinction?

For me, the bottom line is that Whitlock has a four-pitch arsenal which includes effective out pitches against righties and lefties — seriously; no split to speak of. He's a tall, sturdy dude. He strikes out >9 per 9 and walks <2. He has a respectable groundball rate. On paper, that's the profile of a good starting pitcher, and good starting pitchers on reasonable contracts are crazy valuable.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
815
I'll be interesting to see if folks who are posting now come running back to bump the thread and make the same type of post hoc arguments if Sale gets injured or when Grissom starts hitting.
There aren't too many who can totally refrain from post hoc arguments. Some are using the post hoc argument of how surprisingly good the Red Sox starting pitching has been to vindicate the position that the Sox didn't need Sale this year whether he pitched well or not.

And if Sale does get injured, I'm sure there will be a pile of posts about how it was only a matter of time.

It's just human nature to view through the lens of what's actually happening right now.

Personally I find this trade a halfway interesting one to talk about because it was a trade of such radically different assets. Also for me it's one of the only Breslow moves that falls in the questionable category.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Cornerstone may be a bit aggressive on Grissom. ATL has a good history in the past decade of self evaluating their own players. If they truly believed that Grissom was a cornerstone type player I doubt they would have traded him for a frequently and oft injured Sale on a one year deal. Yes they are at a different point in their championship window than the Sox and may be willing to pay a little extra for the “one piece” to put them over the top, but…
Albies, Arcia, Riley are all locked up in long term contracts. Arcia's a FA in 2027 if ATL uses a club option in 26.

Ultimately the big stumbling block was his SS defense - and they're not going to bench Arcia (while they're contending) to try to develop Grissom as a SS at the ML level.

Plus they've got a good SS prospect in AA, so all that makes Grissom expendable, to a degree. If he arrived at a different point in their window, or if 2B were a position of need, I'm not sure they'd have traded him.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
There aren't too many who can totally refrain from post hoc arguments. Some are using the post hoc argument of how surprisingly good the Red Sox starting pitching has been to vindicate the position that the Sox didn't need Sale this year whether he pitched well or not.

And if Sale does get injured, I'm sure there will be a pile of posts about how it was only a matter of time.

It's just human nature to view through the lens of what's actually happening right now.

Personally I find this trade a halfway interesting one to talk about because it was a trade of such radically different assets. Also for me it's one of the only Breslow moves that falls in the questionable category.
I agree, it says a lot about Breslow's view of when he thinks they'll compete (maybe this year but probably not til later) and about his priority for clearing payroll.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,248
Just for the record, I adored the trade then and I still adore it now.

If Sale were pitching the way he is right now and the Red Sox were to trade him at this minute, would they get something "better" than Vaughn Grissom, especially for the 2025 and beyond team? It's possible, but I really don't think so. Looking at the Verlander trade as somewhat of a comp, NYM got Drew Gilbert (struggling mightily in AAA) and Ryan Clifford (just promoted to AA, and he was "fine" but nothing that special in A+ before moving up - though he does walk - and strike out - a ton). I'd still far rather have Grissom.

I agree, it says a lot about Breslow's view of when he thinks they'll compete (maybe this year but probably not til later) and about his priority for clearing payroll.
Yeah - and I think he's absolutely right.

Now if only he could find that kind of deal for Yoshida and Story we'd really be on to something.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,854
Just for the record, I adored the trade then and I still adore it now.

If Sale were pitching the way he is right now and the Red Sox were to trade him at this minute, would they get something "better" than Vaughn Grissom, especially for the 2025 and beyond team? It's possible, but I really don't think so. Looking at the Verlander trade as somewhat of a comp, NYM got Drew Gilbert (struggling mightily in AAA) and Ryan Clifford (just promoted to AA, and he was "fine" but nothing that special in A+ before moving up - though he does walk - and strike out - a ton). I'd still far rather have Grissom.



Yeah - and I think he's absolutely right.

Now if only he could find that kind of deal for Yoshida and Story we'd really be on to something.
I don't have the time to look up what the Mets put up so that Houston would take on Verlander besides those players and that would go towards what quality those players are seen as.
But Sale, no matter how good he's pitching at the time will always be seen as a likely injury candidate. Even in the seasons when he doesn't break down, he clearly starts to pitch worse after July
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,248
I don't have the time to look up what the Mets put up so that Houston would take on Verlander besides those players and that would go towards what quality those players are seen as.
But Sale, no matter how good he's pitching at the time will always be seen as a likely injury candidate. Even in the seasons when he doesn't break down, he clearly starts to pitch worse after July
They basically paid half of Verlander's salary for the next two seasons, ish.

Agree with you on the latter part - which is why I mentioned that I adored it then and still do now. Grissom is (my opinion) a better piece to have received than what the Mets got, even with Sale's injury history. The Red Sox have (between their MLB roster and their upper minors) roughly 725 left handed hitting options that have demonstrated any ability to ever hit LHP, they didn't / don't need two more.

Or, put another way, I'm glad Breslow targeted an actual need for the organization and I think he did a really good job in making a deal that makes (made) sense for both sides.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,943
Unreal America
Sale was gone after this season had we retained him. The Sox clearly weren't preparing a roster with title aspirations this season. We got an intriguing piece back that could end up being a major contributor.

I'm happy for Sale that's he's had a good start to the season, but I really can't summon any regret for what Breslow did.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
960
(B)Austin Texas
Regarding whether the Braves were trying to pull something over in us, when DD traded for Sale with the White Sox, he gave up a young, legitimate MLB starter prospect in Moncada (plus Michael Kopech, Luis Alexander Basabe and Victor Diaz because Sale was much better then than recently). The point is, teams will trade legitimate assets for other players they believe will help them, especially is those assets are redundant (Devers).
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
815
Sale was gone after this season had we retained him. The Sox clearly weren't preparing a roster with title aspirations this season. We got an intriguing piece back that could end up being a major contributor.

I'm happy for Sale that's he's had a good start to the season, but I really can't summon any regret for what Breslow did.
It should be noted that there was a vesting option in Sale's contract with the Red Sox for 2025. He had to finish in the 2024 AL Cy Young voting top 10 and not be on the IL at the end of the season. Somebody said that since it was a team option the Red Sox could exercise it even if it didn't vest, but I'm not sure that's how it works.
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
It should be noted that there was a vesting option in Sale's contract with the Red Sox for 2025. He had to finish in the 2024 AL Cy Young voting top 10 and not be on the IL at the end of the season. Somebody said that since it was a team option the Red Sox could exercise it even if it didn't vest, but I'm not sure that's how it works.
That is how it works. Vesting options are also team options, at least that’s how Sale’s was always described from day one since he signed it. So it’s not accurate to say they only had one year of control for Sale.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
815
That is how it works. Vesting options are also team options, at least that’s how Sale’s was always described from day one since he signed it. So it’s not accurate to say they only had one year of control for Sale.
Per mlb.com:

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/vesting-option

"In most cases, a vesting option that fails to vest can still be exercised as a club option."

Of course there has to be a "in most cases" qualifier, but this is the general rule.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,465
Now, maybe you could make a case that an injury-prone pitcher (to the extent that isn't just a synonym for "pitcher") might be better slotted into the bullpen for the good of the roster because it's easier to reshuffle roles in the bullpen in the wake of an injury than it is to get your depth starting pitchers lined up, etc., when one goes down. If that were the case, and we could confidently discern which pitchers were especially injury prone — a massive, massive "if" — it might indeed make sense from a roster standpoint to pitch those pitchers in relief. However, that's quite a different claim than the argument that a pitcher who gets hurt as a starter would not get hurt (or would get hurt less frequently) as a reliever.
"For the good of the roster" is a really good point (amidst a really good post). In fact, I think it represents a subconscious underpinning of my own particular thoughts about "who should start and who should relieve" among those pitchers that might be either/or candidates, as well as the larger point of who stays and who goes. A related example for me -- and please do NOT treat this as a digression to re-litigate the trade -- was my attitude toward trading Sale. His uncertain availability was a disruption due to the re-shuffling factor. I dont believe it makes a difference for purposes of the above point that that was a trade instead of a shift in roles. And, of course, the overall point about the predictability of injuries remains, (mostly) no matter the pitcher, and no matter the role.
In hindsight, we may be able to say, "Wow, pitcher A was always hurt when he was a starter and flourished as a reliever" and maybe the opposite with other pitchers. Maybe studying *them* post hoc is a way to get some "whys" and then maybe some predictability. Lotsa maybes.
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
And second, Sale's in fact held up! (So far.) Obviously, if we knew in advance what we know now — that Sale would be leading the National League in walk rate while starting every fifth day at the top of a contender's rotation in late May — we'd have kept him and found different fixes for the infield and bullpen and starting depth. But ex ante?
Sale could put up 8 WAR this year and win a cy young and people would still defend the trade, if for nothing else for the simple notion that ‘we weren’t competing this year anyway’ (which in it of itself is a problem).
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Sale could put up 8 WAR this year and win a cy young and people would still defend the trade, if for nothing else for the simple notion that ‘we weren’t competing this year anyway’ (which in it of itself is a problem).
People would still defend the trade because literally nobody on Earth outside the Sale family thought he would put up 8 WAR this year. I gather some would still shit on Bres like he should have known what the future would be but in this hypothetical it's ridiculous.

Now, if you want to have an academic discussion of whether Grissom is worth losing an 8-win pitcher, fine, but I'll wait to see how he looks too.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
960
(B)Austin Texas
And there will be some people who decry the trade even if Grissom puts up 3 WAR for the next 4 years beginning in 2025. And I disagree that we only have these first 45 games to evaluate Grissom. We have 60+ games he's played for Atlanta when he was healthy and he out up a 105 OPS+.