Foundation for next year?

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
A few random thoughts on this this morning...

1. I don't think JDM goes anywhere. In order for him to go elsewhere, someone will need to top 3/62.45 (just under $21m/yr). That is possible, but it would have to be an AL-team (no NL team wants him in their OF, I couldn't imagine) with a need for a DH, that's in contention (or believes that they are), and has that kind of money to spend. There just aren't many teams on that list. Not saying it's not possible, but it's not likely. And I think they'd have to overpay him by plenty to get him to leave Boston.

2. I don't think anyone should expect Workman to duplicate this season. He's been terrific, no doubt. But this has been his best season by FAR in virtually every way imaginable. Here are some stats looking at his 2019 versus his career high (numbers don't include last night's game):

ERA: 2.14 - previous best was 3.18 in 2017
WHIP: 1.032 - previous best was 1.210 in both 2017 and 2018
K/9: 12.9 - previous best was 10.2 in 2013
BAA: .125 - previous best was .230 in 2018
OPS: .440 - previous best was .705 in 2018
BABIP: .210 - previous best was .259 in 2018

His overall career numbers suggest that he's a solid bullpen guy - not at all someone you expect to dominate, but not at all someone you hesitate to throw out there. He's solid. Perfectly capable major league reliever. I would be shocked if he's THIS guy again in 2020. So long story short...I think they need more bullpen help next year.

3. However, that bullpen help may come in the form of Hernandez and Taylor. Again, not including last night's game, here are their numbers:

Taylor: 3.00 era, 1.24 whip, 11.6 k/9
Hernandez: 2.93 era, 1.59 whip, 17.2 k/9

You can tolerate Hernandez' high whip (due to his awful bb/9 numbers) because he strikes out so many damned guys. Having not one but TWO quality left-handed power pitchers coming out of the bullpen may be an enormous boost to the team for 2020. Their emergence - if it's real - may be one of the best things to come out of the 2019 season.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
A few random thoughts on this this morning...

2. I don't think anyone should expect Workman to duplicate this season. He's been terrific, no doubt. But this has been his best season by FAR in virtually every way imaginable. Here are some stats looking at his 2019 versus his career high (numbers don't include last night's game):

ERA: 2.14 - previous best was 3.18 in 2017
WHIP: 1.032 - previous best was 1.210 in both 2017 and 2018
K/9: 12.9 - previous best was 10.2 in 2013
BAA: .125 - previous best was .230 in 2018
OPS: .440 - previous best was .705 in 2018
BABIP: .210 - previous best was .259 in 2018

His overall career numbers suggest that he's a solid bullpen guy - not at all someone you expect to dominate, but not at all someone you hesitate to throw out there. He's solid. Perfectly capable major league reliever. I would be shocked if he's THIS guy again in 2020. So long story short...I think they need more bullpen help next year.

3. However, that bullpen help may come in the form of Hernandez and Taylor. Again, not including last night's game, here are their numbers:

Taylor: 3.00 era, 1.24 whip, 11.6 k/9
Hernandez: 2.93 era, 1.59 whip, 17.2 k/9

You can tolerate Hernandez' high whip (due to his awful bb/9 numbers) because he strikes out so many damned guys. Having not one but TWO quality left-handed power pitchers coming out of the bullpen may be an enormous boost to the team for 2020. Their emergence - if it's real - may be one of the best things to come out of the 2019 season.
Chances are you are right about Workman. The only caveat to that is that his fastball velocity seems improved over last year to the point that it's a weapon on its own, rather than a surprise change of pace. But ultimately I agree that they'll need bullpen help for next year. What they *don't* need is to spend big money on "established relievers." Just as last year brought Brasier (and to a lesser extent Johnson and Velazquez), this year brought Walden, Taylor, Hernandez, and SuperWorkman to a bullpen which would have been perfectly adequate if the rotation had been anything other than a disaster. And next year will be someone else no one expected. I dont think its any more likely that an "established" reliever will perform appreciably better than someone we've never heard of.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Wait, this is an argument against the idea that Betts is the more valuable of the two? :unsure:
It depends on your definition of value. All else equal, of course Betts is the more valuable baseball player. But all else isn’t equal. Given market dynamics and current biases among front offices, it’s more likely that Betts will get an absurd contract than Martinez will. So, if Betts just wants to get as rich as Mookie Betts can get, the “winner” of that auction will likely get the “winner’s curse.”
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
2. I don't think anyone should expect Workman to duplicate this season. He's been terrific, no doubt. But this has been his best season by FAR in virtually every way imaginable. Here are some stats looking at his 2019 versus his career high (numbers don't include last night's game):

ERA: 2.14 - previous best was 3.18 in 2017
WHIP: 1.032 - previous best was 1.210 in both 2017 and 2018
K/9: 12.9 - previous best was 10.2 in 2013
BAA: .125 - previous best was .230 in 2018
OPS: .440 - previous best was .705 in 2018
BABIP: .210 - previous best was .259 in 2018

His overall career numbers suggest that he's a solid bullpen guy - not at all someone you expect to dominate, but not at all someone you hesitate to throw out there. He's solid. Perfectly capable major league reliever. I would be shocked if he's THIS guy again in 2020. So long story short...I think they need more bullpen help next year.
Workman has made one real, significant change in his approach over the past couple of years: he's throwing his curve a lot more, and his other pitches, particularly his fastball, less. The curve is an outstanding pitch, rated #14 in value among 211 CB-throwing pitchers with 50 or more innings this year. He's gone from throwing it 24% of the time in 2017 to 37% last year to 47% this year. And his BABIP allowed has gone from .283 to .259 to .208 over that stretch, while his K rate has soared and his HR rate has plummeted. The only downside is a greatly increased walk rate, but you can get away with walking guys if you make it extremely difficult to hit the ball a long way.

It's probably too much to expect a repeat of 2019, but he may have found himself a new level that's a bit better than the reliably-middling Workman of years past.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Chances are you are right about Workman. The only caveat to that is that his fastball velocity seems improved over last year to the point that it's a weapon on its own, rather than a surprise change of pace. But ultimately I agree that they'll need bullpen help for next year. What they *don't* need is to spend big money on "established relievers." Just as last year brought Brasier (and to a lesser extent Johnson and Velazquez), this year brought Walden, Taylor, Hernandez, and SuperWorkman to a bullpen which would have been perfectly adequate if the rotation had been anything other than a disaster. And next year will be someone else no one expected. I dont think its any more likely that an "established" reliever will perform appreciably better than someone we've never heard of.
The problem with that strategy is that you’re applying survivor bias to your assessment. The Red Sox didn’t identify Taylor in spring training, they sent him to the minors and let Thornburg get torched in a bunch of games. Even though he rarely got high lev opportunities to blow, their inability to use him causes overusing and overexposing players that were productive, leading to poorer performance by them. Then they went to Taylor.

Same with Hernandez. Hernandez wasn’t ready to help out of spring training, so they cycled through Brian Johnson, Travis Lakins, Mike Shawayren, and Bobby Poyner before deciding they couldn’t handle it and switched Hernandez to the pen and then brought him up.

In the period right before they realized what they had in Taylor and Hernandez, they moved Eovaldi to the pen to shore it up. That decision might have never happened with a stronger pen, and Eovaldi would have been back to starting earlier and fully stretched out by now.

They can’t afford to do all that again next year. As we are sadly learning the AL East is just way too competitive to piss away games experimenting with AAAA players for the first half of a season you’re spending $240 million to win a World Series.

If you reframe this year as a rebuilding year, then yeah, kudos on finding 3 or 4 cheap relievers for an attempt to win next year. But 2019 wasn’t supposed to be a rebuilding year.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
A few random thoughts on this this morning...

1. I don't think JDM goes anywhere. In order for him to go elsewhere, someone will need to top 3/62.45 (just under $21m/yr). That is possible, but it would have to be an AL-team (no NL team wants him in their OF, I couldn't imagine) with a need for a DH, that's in contention (or believes that they are), and has that kind of money to spend. There just aren't many teams on that list. Not saying it's not possible, but it's not likely. And I think they'd have to overpay him by plenty to get him to leave Boston.
This is why I mentioned up thread that i see JD as a bit of a wild card in all of this. Will his option dictate the direction that the Sox take concerning Mookie? I realize Mookie's demands will play a huge role in that as well, but if Martinez doesn't opt out what's the tipping point as far as $$$ and years for Betts? Anyone have any idea as to what the time frame the for is opt out? Also I'm not 100% sure that an NL team wouldn't entertain the idea of Martinez in right field depending on the home park and the strength of their center fielder. If his production is truly seen as a difference maker there might be a couple of NL teams willing to go just the three remaining years that he has in Boston at a higher per year average.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Workman has made one real, significant change in his approach over the past couple of years: he's throwing his curve a lot more, and his other pitches, particularly his fastball, less. The curve is an outstanding pitch, rated #14 in value among 211 CB-throwing pitchers with 50 or more innings this year. He's gone from throwing it 24% of the time in 2017 to 37% last year to 47% this year. And his BABIP allowed has gone from .283 to .259 to .208 over that stretch, while his K rate has soared and his HR rate has plummeted. The only downside is a greatly increased walk rate, but you can get away with walking guys if you make it extremely difficult to hit the ball a long way.

It's probably too much to expect a repeat of 2019, but he may have found himself a new level that's a bit better than the reliably-middling Workman of years past.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I would expect his numbers next year to be somewhere between this year's and his career averages. Which amounts to a pretty nice relief pitcher and a very valuable one to have.

I think Barnes will be better (at times he's been great this year but at times he's struggled). I like Taylor and Hernandez as power lefties. That's four quality relief pitchers. I think Walden would be a pretty nice 7th man (better than most teams' 7th bullpen guy). That leaves two spots, which I'd like for the Sox to actively try to improve.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
The obscene glut of prospects the Padres have are gonna face a Rule V crunch. I’d be interested in liberating one of their top flight pitching prospects along with Wil Myers, who’s as good a bet as any available to play first base the next couple years while Casas gets ready. He’s a terrible contract at 3/$67m, but if Luis Patiño or Chris Paddack come with him, it’s worth it.
And what bag of magic beans are you going to trade for Myers/Patino? You realize they are going to want something good in return, even with Myers' contract? It's not like the Padres are hitting the tax ceiling.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
And what bag of magic beans are you going to trade for Myers/Patino? You realize they are going to want something good in return, even with Myers' contract? It's not like the Padres are hitting the tax ceiling.
I’m not sure. That’s a weirdly constructed team. I just know they’ve got a major-league ready rotation of Richards, Paddack, Lamet, Lucchesi, Lauer, Quantrill, Nix and Bolanos next year, with Gore, Kennedy, Cantillo, Weathers, Morejon and Espinoza on the way. Their 40-man crunch looks to get especially tight the winter after next, but they might jump at the chance to move Myers to a team that can theoretically afford him.

They’re one of the teams it makes sense to move Betts to if he doesn’t sign. Prospects galore and it gives Preller a chance to woo him with the young core before trying to extend.

For the record I want to extend Mookie, but something like Myers, Lamet, Renfroe and Patiño would be an interesting return for his last year.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Well Mookie would certainly qualify as a "magic bean".
Moving Mookie is not preferable. I’m just curious about how they’d value a Myers/SP package with two other mega contracts on their payroll. It looks rather value-neutral from here. There are probably five Padre pitchers who’d be better than any non-Cole/Wheeler starter we could get in free agency. Myers would be grossly overpaid but not useless to us, and at 28 still has some upside. Plus we have a 2-3 year window at first base.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Analyzing trading a superstar isn't about getting equal "value" back. Let's say you trade a 7 WAR player for three players, who are 2, 2, and 3 WAR players. So you trade away 7 WAR and receive back 7 WAR. Teams don't have a finite number (well, they do because we're dealing with human beings with limitations) of WAR, but they DO have a finite number of SPOTS. Trading a quarter for 5 nickels is an even trade money-wise. It's twenty-five cents either way. But if you are told you can only have a maximum of five *coins*, then trading away a quarter for five nickels is a colossally stupid trade, even if the total value is the same.

In the WAR example, you only need *one* player to get 7 WAR, so trading that away to get back a package of equal "value" doesn't make sense IF it requires *three* players to get that 7 WAR back.

It is highly highly highly unlikely that the Red Sox team as a whole will be better trading Mookie away, even if what they get back is of "equal value".

Yes, I know money is a factor. I'm just talking here about player production value.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I’m saying Myers’ negative value squares, say, Paddack’s positive value. That’s what I meant by value-neutral.

I’ll preface every post with “I don’t want to trade Mookie, but...” if I have to, but I’m trying to explore a scenario that actually helps the ballclub if they decide to trade him. I can’t think of a one-for-one, quarter-for-a-quarter deal that’s out there. Last year’s Goldschmidt for Weaver/Kelly/Young trade is the touchstone, and Arizona did well there.

But yeah, I’d rather talk about the value of players I actually want them to trade.
 
Last edited:

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,792
Suburbs of Washington, DC
Also, regarding Myers' salary, we're ideally trying to shed salary, not take on bloated contracts, even if paired with other talents. In particular next year, a combination of a Moreland (on a one-year deal)/Travis/Chavis/Vazquez at 1B, and a combination of Chavis/Hernandez/Lin at 2B gets us a ton of salary efficiency that we need for balance throughout the roster. Adding Myers could well be a performance downgrade over the incumbents, and the salary addition just wouldn't make any sense IMO.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Also, regarding Myers' salary, we're ideally trying to shed salary, not take on bloated contracts, even if paired with other talents. In particular next year, a combination of a Moreland (on a one-year deal)/Travis/Chavis/Vazquez at 1B, and a combination of Chavis/Hernandez/Lin at 2B gets us a ton of salary efficiency that we need for balance throughout the roster. Adding Myers could well be a performance downgrade over the incumbents, and the salary addition just wouldn't make any sense IMO.
I'm ready to move on from the 1.5 months of good Moreland... and thoroughly ready for Travis/Chavis there
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I'm ready to move on from the 1.5 months of good Moreland... and thoroughly ready for Travis/Chavis there
Yeah, Moreland and Pearce likely move on. Still a small sample with Travis, but he's shown more ability at the plate this season than in any past years with the big team and let's face it the Tavis/Chavis duo will probably cost less than 25% of what they paid Pearce. If the Sox go this route I would like to see them perhaps find a reliable 1B/corner outfield type with a bit of pop that can rotate in and out of the lineup, get a fair a fair amount of ABs while spelling a few of the regulars. Being able to do that puts Martinez full time at DH (providing he's still here) and also would leave sort of a flexible, rotating lineup a la the Dodgers that affords you the availability of a solid bat on the bench most days to pinch hit if needed. All the better if you're able to keep Holt and consider that Marco Hernandez will likely replace the role filled by Nunez.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Also, regarding Myers' salary, we're ideally trying to shed salary, not take on bloated contracts, even if paired with other talents. In particular next year, a combination of a Moreland (on a one-year deal)/Travis/Chavis/Vazquez at 1B, and a combination of Chavis/Hernandez/Lin at 2B gets us a ton of salary efficiency that we need for balance throughout the roster. Adding Myers could well be a performance downgrade over the incumbents, and the salary addition just wouldn't make any sense IMO.
I don’t really agree we’re ideally trying to shed salary. We’re trying to acquire a cost-controlled, front-of-the-rotation starter. The Padres have literally too much of it, and the anchor contract that conceivably makes it more available to us (and the small number of other teams who could afford it) belongs to a 28-year-old former top prospect who stands an alright chance of regaining his form. It’s not like we’d be taking back Chris Davis.

I could be wrong, but I don’t see them giving the job to Dalbec outright. Travis is as useless a major leaguer as it gets, and Chavis might charitably be projected as a league average second baseman next year, not a first baseman.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I agree with this, and also, this year there's a plethora of viable (though not necessarily exciting) starting pitchers hitting FA. It should be a relative buyer's market, and seems like the logical place for DD to concentrate on the FA side of things this winter.
Rich Hill might come in at a reasonable price. Hamels is still useful. Ryu, Strasburg, Cole and Keuchel are probably out of the Sox' price range.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
I don’t really agree we’re ideally trying to shed salary. We’re trying to acquire a cost-controlled, front-of-the-rotation starter. The Padres have literally too much of it, and the anchor contract that conceivably makes it more available to us (and the small number of other teams who could afford it) belongs to a 28-year-old former top prospect who stands an alright chance of regaining his form. It’s not like we’d be taking back Chris Davis.
First of all, you can never have too much starting pitching, as we've seen this year and many other teams have seen in the past.

Second, if Myers is a "28-year old former top prospect who stands an alright chance of regaining his form", then why does he have to be paired with a young starter to be gotten rid of? Doesn't he still have value on his own?

Third, the Padres' farm is pretty loaded already, as you noted from a starting pitching perspective. What would they want back? They have Machado and Hosmer locked in at the corners, Tatis and Urias up the middle, a boatload of young OFers (although none of them can really play center all that well). They have a young catcher with a good glove man backup (Mejia/Hedges). So they need a CF and ELITE starting pitching (doesn't everyone?).

Fourth, from a luxury tax perspective, the Myers contract is not onerous. It's just under $14M a year until 2022. Cash being paid out is $61M over the next three years, so that could be a problem for the smallest markets. However, that still leaves a lot of teams that would be interested in a deal like that. So what are you going to trade to San Diego? And is that going to be enough to beat the Yankees (starting pitching is their big weakness and they have a big farm), Astros (if Cole leaves), Twins (good farm, and not a huge payroll), Braves (another good farm system pretty much a contender now), among others?

MAYBE they'd work out a deal around Myers and JBJ, but there's no way the Red Sox are getting a cost-controlled starter from them, given the Padres' needs and what the Sox have available. It's pure wishcasting.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
How is it wishcasting any more than saying the Sox should outbid 20 teams and sign Cole Hamels? How are we supposed to talk about the future of the Red Sox without engaging in a little wishcasting?

The team needs pitching. I’m trying to think of a creative solution. They have some degree of financial muscle they can flex that can’t (or shouldn’t), like previous years, be exercised in free agency. I think it’s a terrible idea to attempt to lure Keuchel or Hamels or Ryu or 40-year-old Rich Hill or any other soft-tossing lefty to Boston, and I’m sure those pitchers agree they’d be crushed. Cole or Strasburg seem like extreme longshots. Odorizzi, Gibson or Wheeler might work, but will require contracts probably exceeding $50m.

You’re right that the Padres have no apparent needs, especially in the infield, but they could use an upgrade or two in the outfield. You’re right that the Astros, Braves and Yankees have better farms than ours — but none have a hole at first base or the corner outfield where they can put Myers like we do. (Though the Braves might need an outfielder in 2020.)

The Padres themselves seemed to have moved on from Myers entirely — he’s a bench player these days, and seems like a change of scenery candidate. I have no idea what Preller wants, but the upcoming roster crunch they face means they could use prospects who need Rule V protection further down the line.

I think something like Myers/Lamet for Jimenez, Travis and Brian Johnson would work. Benintendi for Myers and Paddack would seem to work too, depending how well other teams still view Benny.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Well Mookie would certainly qualify as a "magic bean".
Probably the team that would make the most sense to send Betts to, if we're trading him, would be Atlanta.

(To be clear, I don't really see it making a ton of sense to trade Betts, even if we *can't extend him* pre-FA, given the state of the team's window in other respects.)

The appeal for Atlanta is obvious: A Betts-Albies-Acuña-Freeman-Riley top of the order would score some runs and improve their defense. They have plenty of payroll space to give Betts a 10/$300m extension, and they become an instant contender for the NL pennant for the next decade.

For Boston, we'd be asking for Cristian Pache, Ian Anderson, both Top 50 guys close to MLB ready, and a few more merely good prospects (Bryse Wilson? William Contreras? Daysbel Hernandez? — they have a lot of interesting young players). It gets him out of the AL. We could potentially flip some of that haul for another starter, or just promote Pache and put him in right, and sign an FA starter with what would have been Betts' $26m arb award.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Probably the team that would make the most sense to send Betts to, if we're trading him, would be Atlanta.

(To be clear, I don't really see it making a ton of sense to trade Betts, even if we *can't extend him* pre-FA, given the state of the team's window in other respects.)

The appeal for Atlanta is obvious: A Betts-Albies-Acuña-Freeman-Riley top of the order would score some runs and improve their defense. They have plenty of payroll space to give Betts a 10/$300m extension, and they become an instant contender for the NL pennant for the next decade.

For Boston, we'd be asking for Cristian Pache, Ian Anderson, both Top 50 guys close to MLB ready, and a few more merely good prospects (Bryse Wilson? William Contreras? Daysbel Hernandez? — they have a lot of interesting young players). It gets him out of the AL. We could potentially flip some of that haul for another starter, or just promote Pache and put him in right, and sign an FA starter with what would have been Betts' $26m arb award.
Seems as if Atlanta would be giving up too much. If Betts gets $26M in arb, and using your AAV of $30M, that would only be $4M in equity for one year and it's unlikely that Mookie wouldn't test the free agent market.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
For Boston, we'd be asking for Cristian Pache, Ian Anderson, both Top 50 guys close to MLB ready, and a few more merely good prospects (Bryse Wilson? William Contreras? Daysbel Hernandez? — they have a lot of interesting young players). It gets him out of the AL. We could potentially flip some of that haul for another starter, or just promote Pache and put him in right, and sign an FA starter with what would have been Betts' $26m arb award.
If you mean the Sox would be asking for two top-50 guys, and then other quality prospects on top of that, I think you may be overestimating the trade value of even a future Hall of Famer with just one year of control left at a premium price. I think one of those two guys plus a couple of lesser guys would be an excellent return. I also think Dombrowski would get crucified by press and fandom for that deal, which kind of shows why it's rare, in recent years, for superstars to get traded the winter before FA. Two years before, when they can merit a more substantial return, or at the final trade deadline, when it becomes an obvious matter of "get what you can while you can", have been more common.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Paul Goldschmidt got a good haul in return from STL with a year left on his deal and Mookie is a better player, but also Goldschmidt signed an extension soon after and it's unlikely Mookie will do that.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Paul Goldschmidt got a good haul in return from STL with a year left on his deal and Mookie is a better player, but also Goldschmidt signed an extension soon after and it's unlikely Mookie will do that.
Goldschmidt's deal was the comp I was looking at for one season of an MVP candidate.

Edited to add: If we can't get a package like that, I'd rather just risk he leaves for a pick.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Regarding JDM opting out this winter or next, is the Commish going to install the DH in the NL over that same timeframe?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Regarding JDM opting out this winter or next, is the Commish going to install the DH in the NL over that same timeframe?
Ooooh yeah. I totally forgot that that is supposed to kick in soon, and that would completely open up a pretty big market for JDM. I'm sure there's lot of sluggers in the NL that are stuck out in RF or at 1B though that would benefit from being a DH... so I wonder how that market would look. Teams trying to figure out if they want to add a DH or turn their crappy defense slugger into the DH and look for a decent hitting good defensive guy (Moreland when he's healthy could end up with another decent 2 or 3 year contract)
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Regarding JDM opting out this winter or next, is the Commish going to install the DH in the NL over that same timeframe?
Manfred said in May it’s very unlikely to happen under this CBA, so 2022 at the earliest.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
There are a few DD threads going on but I wanted to dig a little deeper into how DD's departure impacts the Sox in 2020. For starters, this tweet from Red Sox Stats and the sources Speier piece grabbed my attention:

View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1171079525372964864?s=19


Not to retread the same points made about a potential Mookie trade, is JDM a candidate to be intentionally let go this off-season, either by not resigning him if he opts out or by trading him if he doesn't? The emergence of Devers and Bogaerts as legit power threats mitigates losing his bat, and you have cheap depth in Chavis and possibly Dalbec to augment the roster. If not, how else do the Sox regain some payroll and roster flexibility without doing a complete tear down?
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
With Porcello, Moreland, Pearce, Nunez, Holt, Thornburg and Sandoval (finally) off the books, I think they'll have north of $50M to use to cover X's and Sale's increased costs (about $18M), the arb increases of key players like Mookie, JBJ, E-Rod, Barnes and Workman, and the newly arb-eligible Beni. All of those should cost what in total, maybe $45M? I don't think they'll have to deal someone to stay under the 2d CBT level, but they would have to go cheap at a few spots (1B, 5th SP). They'd have more available money if JDM opts out, but also another sizable hole to fill.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
$45m for that group is incredibly optimistic given that Mookie himself is probably getting $25 and JBJ and ERod are probably going to get about $10m each.

Sportrac says they are at ~$134m in salary. Benefits and minor league contracts cost ~$17.5m. That means that the Sox go into the offseason with ~$151.5m already spoken for. Even taking your $45m number, and let's just call it $48.5 to make the math easy, they are at $200m with no 1b, 2b, bench, fourth or fifth starter, or improvement in the bullpen.

The 2020 tax levels are $208m, $228m, and $248m.

Even going with Chavis and Travis at 2b and 1b, I don't think there's any way they are improving the pen and rotation to make this a championship-caliber team for under $28m, which means they can't stay under the second tax level.

I think it's fair to assume that the owners reviewed all of this with DD, which is why he's no longer employed.

If they are serious about getting under the $208 tax number, as has been reported, then I think that necessarily means losing two of Mookie, JDM, Sale and Price (the latter two of whom are virtually untradeable) and replacing them with very low-cost options. And if they take that approach, they probably decline to tender JBJ as well.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
I would be extremely skeptical of any report that states the Sox want to get under the first threshold of $208M next season. If Henry really wanted to do that, he would have told DD long before Eovaldi and Sale were signed.

I can believe reports that the team would want to get under the first threshold sometime in the next 2-4 years. Similarly, I would believe the team doesn't want to exceed the top threshold and lose the draft slot.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
So the easy way to get under the first tax threshold in the next 2-4 years is to trade or no re-sign Mookie and trade or not re-sign JDM. The question is, is there a creative way to do that without losing those guys?
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
So the easy way to get under the first tax threshold in the next 2-4 years is to trade or no re-sign Mookie and trade or not re-sign JDM. The question is, is there a creative way to do that without losing those guys?
You'd have to sign JD, trade Mookie and try to include one of the albatross contracts in the deal.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
It doesn’t shave off a ton, but it might be a nice time to sell on Vazquez if we can find any takers. Nice bounce back year at the plate but most of his value is bound up in his defense, and I’d be fine living with a year or two of Maldonado, Castro or Cervelli.

Kinda risky since there’s no one in the pipeline, but catcher production is volatile. Only four of the top 15 catchers this year (by fWAR) were among the top 15 catchers last year.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
$45m for that group is incredibly optimistic given that Mookie himself is probably getting $25 and JBJ and ERod are probably going to get about $10m each. ....
I meant $45M more than they cost this year - so, eating up most but not all of the savings from the soon-to-be FAs. That would keep the team under the 2d CBT level.

That already represents a talent loss. If the team wants to get below $208M, then yes, 2 more of the top, most expensive players likely need to go, unsubsidized. Mookie and JDM are the most probable, although maybe they could get there dealing one of those two plus JBJ and a couple of arms. But if that's the new plan, it really seems to conflict with the decision to extend Sale...
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
367
Rob Bradford made a case on the pregame radio show today to sign Porcello to a one year contract. First, it shouldn't be terribly expensive after this season's display.. Second, he is an every other year performer so far (so was Josh Beckett as I recall). Third, it would be in his interest to strive for an impressive year as a springboard towards getting a longer term contract.

Might be worth considering, especially as Sale seems a big question mark.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
It depends on what not terribly expensive means.
If he would sign for 1/$5M, I'd do it tomorrow. if it's $10M, I wouldn't.
The question you have to ask is whether Porcello is a dinosaur in the launch angle revolution. His best pitch was a heavy sinker with which he’d pound the strike zone. That means his best pitch is now nothing but a gopher ball waiting to happen. The adjustments he’s made to the new normal have not worked. He doesn’t throw hard enough to live at the top of the zone, and when he nibbles and walks people those home runs become crooked numbers.

He’d likely just be another 5.00 plus ERA next year. Hard pass unless you’re getting him for Hector Velazquez money.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
I don't think a sinker is a death sentence in today's baseball. Look at Mike Soroka. He throws a 92 mph sinker 45% of the time. He's 25th among qualified starters with a 3.90 xFIP. That's not elite, but he's a very effective pitcher.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I don't buy into even-year, odd-year stuff. That may be his career pattern, but I'm not comfortable banking on getting "even year" Porcello just because it's an even year. That said, I wouldn't be upset if they re-upped him for next year at a reasonable price, and I don't think $10M is unreasonable (though I'd prefer to see less). Over the last three years, he's accumulated 3.5 bWAR and 5.7 fWAR. If you average that out, it's roughly 1.5 WAR per year. If he can do that in 2020, that's worth paying $8-10M.

Unless they're convinced that he well and truly can't be an effective pitcher at all (and yesterday's outing belies that notion), he's a durable arm in a market that won't exactly be flush with them. At least, at a cost that fits the Sox budget. So long as he's not looking to match his previous salary, I don't think bringing Porcello back should be dismissed out of hand.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I think Porcello is going to have a tough time in this market because there are so many #3-4 type SPs hitting FA this year and he does not stand out from that crowd, aside from having had one outlier Cy Young year that some teams may want to gamble on him re-creating. I think he takes a back seat to Wheeler, Odorizzi, Roark, Gibson, and probably a few others.

About Vazquez:

It doesn’t shave off a ton, but it might be a nice time to sell on Vazquez if we can find any takers. Nice bounce back year at the plate but most of his value is bound up in his defense, and I’d be fine living with a year or two of Maldonado, Castro or Cervelli.

Kinda risky since there’s no one in the pipeline, but catcher production is volatile. Only four of the top 15 catchers this year (by fWAR) were among the top 15 catchers last year.
I agree that he seems like an obvious sell-high candidate, but the "no one in the pipeline" issue is kind of a deal-breaker, I think, because it really is absolutely no one. I expect they'll be looking to FA for a backup as it is, assuming they decide to give up on Leon, which I think they will and should. I don't love Vazquez behind the plate -- I've seen no sign, either anecdotally or statistically, that he makes pitchers better, which is really a catcher's main job -- but he's reasonably competent, reasonably cheap, healthy, under 30, and under control for two more years. A catcher who fits that description is somebody you don't give up unless you're absolutely knocked over by an offer--at least not if you don't have an in-house replacement ready.
 
Last edited:

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
It doesn’t shave off a ton, but it might be a nice time to sell on Vazquez if we can find any takers. Nice bounce back year at the plate but most of his value is bound up in his defense, and I’d be fine living with a year or two of Maldonado, Castro or Cervelli.

Kinda risky since there’s no one in the pipeline, but catcher production is volatile. Only four of the top 15 catchers this year (by fWAR) were among the top 15 catchers last year.
Selling high would be great, but realistically what do you hope to get? Might be a very attractive piece as a part of a bigger deal, but given the makeup of the organisation I can't see any chance of that unless you're moving Mookie, in which case you likely don't have to toss in Vazquez. Right now he's the guy we've been hoping he could become and I'm looking forward to not having yet another hand wringing thread about the doom and gloom of the catching situation in 2020.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Unless they're committing to a fire sale that would make the Marlins proud, there's no rationale for trading Christian Vazquez this winter. The salary savings are minimal in the grand scheme, and at best they're going to get back prospects that won't contribute for at least a couple years if ever.

Just look at what the Phillies gave up for Realmuto...Sanchez is a top prospect but he's only just hit AA this year (granted, he's 20), Stewart is the definition of a lottery ticket who has yet to get above A ball, and Alfaro, who is basically a slightly younger/cheaper version of Vazquez. Realmuto is a much better player than Vazquez so it would be unrealistic to think that Vazquez can yield that kind of return, even "selling high". In particular, I can't see a team acquiring Vazquez while simultaneously giving up a serviceable replacement catcher in the process. If a team has an Alfaro, they're better off keeping him than "upgrading" to a more expensive version.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
I think Porcello is going to have a tough time in this market because there are so many #3-4 type SPs hitting FA this year and he does not stand out from that crowd, aside from having had one outlier Cy Young year that some teams may want to gamble on him re-creating. I think he takes a back seat to Wheeler, Odorizzi, Roark, Gibson, and probably a few others.

About Vazquez:



I agree that he seems like an obvious sell-high candidate, but the "no one in the pipeline" issue is kind of a deal-breaker, I think, because it really is absolutely no one. I expect they'll be looking to FA for a backup as it is, assuming they decide to give up on Leon, which I think they will and should. I don't love Vazquez behind the plate -- I've seen no sign, either anecdotally or statistically, that he makes pitchers better, which is really a catcher's main job -- but he's reasonably competent, reasonably cheap, healthy, under 30, and under control for two more years. A catcher who fits that description is somebody you don't give up unless you're absolutely knocked over by an offer--at least not if you don't have an in-house replacement ready.
Unless there is insider information there is no such thing as selling high. Other teams have seen Vasquez play, will watch videos, analyze his stats and make an appraisal as to how he will perform in 2020. He's had a great season this year, but other teams might consider it to be an outlier and bid accordingly. If the Sox do trade him and Vasquez continues to play at the same level or even improves, they will have not sold high.
 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
7,874
SS Botany Bay
Unless there is insider information there is no such thing as selling high. Other teams have seen Vasquez play, will watch videos, analyze his stats and make an appraisal as to how he will perform in 2020. He's had a great season this year, but other teams might consider it to be an outlier and bid accordingly. If the Sox do trade him and Vasquez continues to play at the same level or even improves, they will have not sold high.
It only takes one GM to think he knows better than everyone else. Which Vasquez the Sox (or their potential trade partner) would have on hand offensively will heavily depend on whether the balls are going to remain juiced.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
It only takes one GM to think he knows better than everyone else. Which Vasquez the Sox (or their potential trade partner) would have on hand offensively will heavily depend on whether the balls are going to remain juiced.
That’s a big one. Predicting what’s going to happen with the ball — no easy feat — can make a colossal difference in roster construction.

Consider the Heyward deal, Theo’s biggest error in Chicago. The Cubs offered that contract during peak-dead ball. If that were to be the new normal, there’s a strong likelihood that Heyward would have retained a lot of his value.

I think it’s possible that MLB might feel embarrassed by this year and reel it back somehow. The juiced ball story was pretty widely accepted by late spring, and they’re lucky that Eugenio Suarez or some other Hall of Pretty Good-type player isn’t challenging Maris or Bonds right now.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
I'd really hate to see Betts go, but I think they need to at least see what they could potentially get back in a trade.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
It only takes one GM to think he knows better than everyone else. Which Vasquez the Sox (or their potential trade partner) would have on hand offensively will heavily depend on whether the balls are going to remain juiced.
What are specific benefits for hitters of a juiced ball? I assume that it simply means that, for a given launch angle and exit velocity, the ball travels further. Has it be theorized that it impacts pitch spin or exit velocity? If it's simply that hard-hit balls go further, the Vaz's increase in offense this year is real....barrel % went from 1.9% to 6.1%, his EV went from 87.2 to 88.7 and his hard hit % went from 28.6% to 39.1%.