Matt Barnes DFA'd, traded to Marlins for LH reliever Bleier

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,379
Cotillo’s article has this nugget: … “posting good numbers down the stretch (1.59 ERA in 22⅔ innings in his last 24 games)”…

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2023/01/red-sox-designate-matt-barnes-for-assignment.html
That article has a little more insight:
The Red Sox, according to a person with knowledge of the team’s thinking, believe Barnes’ late-season showing was not as impressive as the numbers show.
I'm willing to believe that the club has better metrics than the ones I can see on fangraphs. But if Bloom can't A) find a trade for Barnes or B) turn Brasier's imaginary numbers into real ones, this is going to look like an enormous miss, from a baseball standpoint.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,329
A “chemistry move””? Huh? After a decade they realized something about Barnes? Do they have data suggesting he wouldn’t get along with Adalberto Mondesi or something?

If they didn’t think much of Barnes all of a sudden, why wait until now to make the move?
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
417
Brasier is absolutely garbage and any team who cuts a better pitcher who isn’t expensive or a head case to depend more on him just adds another mom to tge fire this FO is out to lunch.
Ok, Sully From Revere on WEEI. Brasier has a career 110 ERA+. His "down season" of 2022 featured a k/9 and hr/9 that was right in line with his career average, and his bb/9 was way down. He had the second worst FIP/ERA differential as well. All that points to a 2022 full of bad luck and a chance to rebound in 2023. Brasier is what he is - a guy who will have two or three nuclear meltdown games per season and otherwise be dependable. He's a useful arm when he's used properly. If that's your definition of "garbage", I'm not sure what more you want out of the 5th or 6th reliever out of the 'pen.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,546
A “chemistry move””? Huh? After a decade they realized something about Barnes? Do they have data suggesting he wouldn’t get along with Adalberto Mondesi or something?

If they didn’t think much of Barnes all of a sudden, why wait until now to make the move?
I think Barnes gets traded. I’m just leaving open the possibility that there’s something else going on. I’m not enamored of Bloom’s recent moves either, but I’m comfortable he knows that Barnes is a better pitcher than Ort or Brasier. There’s another shoe to drop here.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,852
San Diego
In the meantime, James Paxton, who's only pitched in one game in the last two years, and a grand total of six since 2020 is still in the conversation about being a contributor in 2023. If I'm ever in attendance at an event where Bloom is introduced, I wouldn't boo him, but I'd definitely withhold any polite applause.
Is this supposed to mean that they should've DFA'd Paxton instead?
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,612
Leaving aside Barnes, I just find it surprising that they haven’t found that 3-for-1 or 4-for-1 deal to potentially clear some spots. Instead they’re forced to keep DFAing notable names. I don’t know if it says something about the trade market or the Sox’ roster or what. Or maybe it doesn’t “mean” anything, I don’t know.
 

Squeteague

New Member
May 8, 2021
29
That article has a little more insight:

I'm willing to believe that the club has better metrics than the ones I can see on fangraphs. But if Bloom can't A) find a trade for Barnes or B) turn Brasier's imaginary numbers into real ones, this is going to look like an enormous miss, from a baseball standpoint.
Also noted in the article is that Barnes is second in Red Sox history in both relief appearances and relief strikeouts.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,122
Rogers Park
Eh, he was fine at the end of last year. I think he’s just inconsistent- a reliever who can be dominant but also can be awful; he has a career ERA of 4, he is what he is. Dumping him in late January is kind of weird though; it’s hard to imagine that this is part of some grand plan, isn’t it?
The spin rate on the fastball was pointedly not back late last season, FWIW.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,379
Ok, Sully From Revere on WEEI. Brasier has a career 110 ERA+. His "down season" of 2022 featured a k/9 and hr/9 that was right in line with his career average, and his bb/9 was way down. He had the second worst FIP/ERA differential as well. All that points to a 2022 full of bad luck and a chance to rebound in 2023. Brasier is what he is - a guy who will have two or three nuclear meltdown games per season and otherwise be dependable. He's a useful arm when he's used properly. If that's your definition of "garbage", I'm not sure what more you want out of the 5th or 6th reliever out of the 'pen.
7/21-11/22:
Barnes:
60419
Brasier:
60420

So if they really think the metrics on Barnes's last couple months were misleading and this overall picture is the guy he is now, you can see how their evaluation makes sense.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
If they didn’t think much of Barnes all of a sudden, why wait until now to make the move?
If it’s a straight DFA, then I agree with you. They’d have much better used the roster spot earlier when they could have kept Ward or Seabold.

But I doubt it’s that. It’s not especially like the Hosmer deal either, because Barnes doesn’t have an NTC. Even if you don’t think he contributes this year, you give him until May 15 to figure it out.

I think he’s in a deal. Unless it’s something bigger, then Fletcher from the Angels, Paul DeJong from the Cardinals, Nick Ahmed from Arizona or Eduardo Escobar from the Mets all seem possible.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,329
If it’s a straight DFA, then I agree with you. They’d have much better used the roster spot earlier when they could have kept Ward or Seabold.

But I doubt it’s that. It’s not especially like the Hosmer deal either, because Barnes doesn’t have an NTC. Even if you don’t think he contributes this year, you give him until May 15 to figure it out.

I think he’s in a deal. Unless it’s something bigger, then Fletcher from the Angels, Paul DeJong from the Cardinals, Nick Ahmed from Arizona or Eduardo Escobar from the Mets all seem possible.
Ok, but then who do they DFA to fit one of those guys on the roster?
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
The Barnes extension was one of the Bloom’s clearest mistakes, in my opinion, unless you think of it as a kind of gesture of goodwill making up for past overuse in the DD era.
Didn’t the extension come before sticky crackdown? He’s hardly the only good pitcher whose numbers suffered after the ban.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,015
St. Louis, MO
The Barnes extension was one of the Bloom’s clearest mistakes, in my opinion, unless you think of it as a kind of gesture of goodwill making up for past overuse in the DD era.
Didn’t the extension happen a couple weeks prior to sticky stuff being banned? He immediately fell off a cliff.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
Didn’t the extension come before sticky crackdown? He’s hardly the only good pitcher whose numbers suffered after the ban.
Didn’t the extension happen a couple weeks prior to sticky stuff being banned? He immediately fell off a cliff.
It did, yeah. Maybe they were blindsided by it? I wonder how much of a surprise the crackdown was to orgs.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,747
Ok, but then who do they DFA to fit one of those guys on the roster?
I believe you can treat DFA status as a kind of limbo (effectively creating an extra spot on the roster for several days), with the DFA'd player actually eligible to be be restored to the club. Maybe we see that here as Bloom works out a trade or two, and in the interim Bloom is just fine with another team taking on Barnes for full salary via claim.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,329
Didn’t the extension happen a couple weeks prior to sticky stuff being banned? He immediately fell off a cliff.
How do you explain the years of mediocrity before, though? He’s always been inconsistent- hell, he has a whopping 4.4 bWAR in his career and an ERA over 4, that’s not great. They bought high with the extension, I don’t think the ban on “sticky stuff” had much of an impact. He’s always looked great at times, and then terrible at other times.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Didn’t the extension come before sticky crackdown? He’s hardly the only good pitcher whose numbers suffered after the ban.
Yes, but it seemed like it was at his highest of high points. I think this extension was Chaim's worst move. Hell, even though I knew it would never happen, I was advocating to sell high on Barnes instead.

Having said that, I find this move fascinating, and the underlying numbers pretty compelling. If there is a trade brewing, and they save some money, great. If it means they don't trade Houck for Kim and keep him for the bullpen, even better.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,493
It actually came 3 weeks after the sticky stuff crackdown.

June 21, 2021 sticky stuff ban.
July 11, 2021 extension.

Barnes allowed 2 runs in 8.2 innings during that window.
 
Last edited:

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,194
Pittsburgh, PA
Forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious, but what's the point of DFA'ing Barnes as part of an already-negotiated trade? Why not just trade him without DFA'ing him first? Was there some pressing need to finalize the Duvall transaction?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
How do you explain the years of mediocrity before, though? He’s always been inconsistent- hell, he has a whopping 4.4 bWAR in his career and an ERA over 4, that’s not great. They bought high with the extension, I don’t think the ban on “sticky stuff” had much of an impact. He’s always looked great at times, and then terrible at other times.
Players change! Lots of reasons why they do.

And how do you not recognize the sticky stuff impact? How else do you explain the sudden drop-off of spin rates?
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
Yes I was just coming to post this. I had it wrong. Those saying it was a big mistake are correct.
Edit: in reference to JM3 post above.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
35,141
Haiku
Guess the Sox have their bloggers smear guys on the way out now.
What, was Barnes some clubhouse tyrant?
My grandfather was fond of talking about clubhouse lawyers. He probably would have had choice words on the subject of union reps.

The funniest part about this is that we've barely stopped booing Barnes.
I think they were saying boo-arnes.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
Yes, but it seemed like it was at his highest of high points. I think this extension was Chaim's worst move. Hell, even though I knew it would never happen, I was advocating to sell high on Barnes instead.

Having said that, I find this move fascinating, and the underlying numbers pretty compelling. If there is a trade brewing, and they save some money, great. If it means they don't trade Houck for Kim and keep him for the bullpen, even better.
Looks like I was wrong about the sequence. You’re right that it was a bad decision.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,329
Players change! Lots of reasons why they do.

And how do you not recognize the sticky stuff impact? How else do you explain the sudden drop-off of spin rates?
I dunno, but just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s important. Look at his spin rate in 2017, so bad! Yet that was one of his best seasons. In 2020, great spin rate, but crappy results. I don’t know how meaningful a difference of average spin rate of 2400 v 2250 rpm is in terms of predicting future performance, frankly; but would love to hear more about it .

I didn’t read much clamor for the team to dump Barnes before tonight.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,379
It actually came 3 weeks after the sticky stuff crackdown.

June 21, 2021 sticky stuff ban.
July 11, 2021 extension.

Barnes allowed 2 runs in 8.2 innings during that window.
He didn't fall apart until August, though his strikeouts were way down in July.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,122
Rogers Park
How do you explain the years of mediocrity before, though? He’s always been inconsistent- hell, he has a whopping 4.4 bWAR in his career and an ERA over 4, that’s not great. They bought high with the extension, I don’t think the ban on “sticky stuff” had much of an impact. He’s always looked great at times, and then terrible at other times.
It's pretty clear from the baseball savant spin numbers that he started using something, or at least started using something effective, between 2017 and 2018, and it made him one of the better closers in baseball.

He had middling spin rates from 2015 to 2017, and a K/9 of 9.6. Then he had good-to-elite spin from 2018 to 2020, and a K/9 of 14.3.

His spin collapsed between the first half and second half of 2021, and his results with it.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,493
My initial thought was that Barnes having neutral l/r splits could come in handy, especially with the Taylor trade... but in the Rays+ world of specialization, they could easily have seen him as not good enough against anyone to be play a key role going forward.

I think it's kinda crazy, but I hope they at least get out from some of the $ or get a prospect or 2 out of it. & you have to appreciate the willingness to consider past mistakes as a sunk cost.
 

MtPleasant Paul

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2015
169
After listening to Bloom my guess is that Barnes will be traded for some minor league filler to a team which will assume two or three mill of his contract while the Red Sox eat the rest. He and Taylor will be replaced by a Worcester. shuttle of Crawford, Winckowski, Mata and Walter.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,278
CT
Forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious, but what's the point of DFA'ing Barnes as part of an already-negotiated trade? Why not just trade him without DFA'ing him first? Was there some pressing need to finalize the Duvall transaction?
Good question, I was just asking myself the same thing. Would be interested in any theories
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,493
After listening to Bloom my guess is that Barnes will be traded for some minor league filler to a team which will assume two or three mill of his contract while the Red Sox eat the rest. He and Taylor will be replaced by a Worcester. shuttle of Crawford, Winckowski, Mata and Walter.
Seems more likely they'll be replaced by the Mills/Sherriff/Kelly/Ort shuttle rather than the starter options shuttle, unless they need spot starts.

Think it's pretty likely they add some more minor league depth & maybe a Chafin, too. Signing Sherriff to help lure a guy who has "The Sheriff" as 1 of his nicknames would be pretty elite.
 
Last edited:

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,278
CT
They wanted to announce Duvall today and think the Barnes trade is close to done. So DFA him now and trade him tmw.
Why not just announce the Duvall deal tomorrow after the Barnes deal? It had been close to a week, was there a time restriction on how long they could wait to announce Duvall?
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,791
This kind of bums me out but I trust Chaim knows what he’s doing. Matt was actually one of my favorite players and this is certainly a surprise.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,924
Really tough team to follow. I don't even care about Barnes that much, but for a fiscally responsible team - we sure like to throw money away a lot.
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
136
To me, DFAing Barnes is fine. He's always been a JAG masquerading as an elite reliever. The classic fungible guy who get's cut and resigned throughout this career. The issue is that there is about 3 other guys who fit the same bill as that, but were worse than Barnes in Mills, Ort, and Braiser, and a bench bat who doesn't have a role on this team in Dalbec. It's curious to be sure. If they end up trading him and clearing some payroll, I guess it's ok, but why we're holding on to MOB (Mills, Ort, Brasier) is beyond me.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,493
Seems more likely they'll be replaced by the Mills/Sherriff/Kelly/Ort shuttle rather than the starter options shuttle, unless they need spot starts.

Think it's pretty likely they add some more minor league depth & maybe a Chafin, too. Signing Sherriff to help lure a guy who has "The Sheriff" as 1 of his nicknames would be pretty elite.
Edited this because I misspelled "Sherriff".

Side note... hope this impression lasts...

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/KingSherriff/status/1617664549825675267
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,593
a basement on the hill
Barnes, when he's pitching well is better than half this bullpen. Hell, he's actually really good.

Meanwhile Brasier just gives up rockets.

This team is gonna suck.