Who is the 4/5 starter who is better than Johnson/Velazquez and doesn't require significant assets or payroll to acquire? The only two I've seen proposed who could fit that bill if you squint are Clayton Richard (assets?) and Matt Harvey (performance?).I get what you saying here, but this team is here NOW. I hate the idea of a 4-5 starter possibly being the difference between the Wild Card Game and the ALDS. I don't believe THAT guy mortgages the future and I would be surprised if DD overpays given what little talent there is.
Just throwing out names, but someone like Hellickson or Ross is probably an upgrade on those and allows them to stay in their valuable middle relief/swing roles.Who is the 4/5 starter who is better than Johnson/Velazquez and doesn't require significant assets or payroll to acquire? The only two I've seen proposed who could fit that bill if you squint are Clayton Richard (assets?) and Matt Harvey (performance?).
And you hate the idea of some other teams 4-5 starter making the start instead? Any starter you get is going to be worse than Sale, Porcello, Price or EdRod. If there was a clear cut upgrade, I'd be all for it but trading for fringe average players can result in Nunez 2017 or Nunez 2018. If you had the names of those 4/5 SPs that the Sox could acquire, the conversation might change a little. Most of us just don't see any realistic targets given what we have to offer.I get what you saying here, but this team is here NOW. I hate the idea of a 4-5 starter possibly being the difference between the Wild Card Game and the ALDS. I don't believe THAT guy mortgages the future and I would be surprised if DD overpays given what little talent there is.
Clayton Richard is signed for next year too, at a measly $3mil, so he'd probably fetch a greater return. It's also debatable if he's much better.Who is the 4/5 starter who is better than Johnson/Velazquez and doesn't require significant assets or payroll to acquire? The only two I've seen proposed who could fit that bill if you squint are Clayton Richard (assets?) and Matt Harvey (performance?).
Just throwing out names, but someone like Hellickson or Ross is probably an upgrade on those and allows them to stay in their valuable middle relief/swing roles.
"Probably an upgrade" just doesn't do it for me. And I think that's the best you get with any of these guys, unless you're giving up significant assets (that we may not even have) in a trade or going over the luxury tax. If anything, I'd rather expend the bullets we have on a back-end bullpen arm. That's more important than a 5th starter in the post-season. I also don't think there's a need to have both Johnson and Velazquez as swing men in the pen. Adding a good relief arm would lengthen the pen in that regard, too.Clayton Richard is signed for next year too, at a measly $3mil, so he'd probably fetch a greater return. It's also debatable if he's much better.
I definitely wouldn't mind having him though. He could be a cheap starting option for next season but I'm not sure he's an improvement for this season.
My bad. I had suggested him and accidentally looked at his 2017 contract which was expiring at 1.8.Clayton Richard is signed for next year too, at a measly $3mil, so he'd probably fetch a greater return. It's also debatable if he's much better.
I definitely wouldn't mind having him though. He could be a cheap starting option for next season but I'm not sure he's an improvement for this season.
One thing that gets glossed over in this "win now" vs "build sustainably" vs "WTF can we even trade, for who" debate is that getting "a couple of wins" improvement out of a deadline acquisition is really, really hard to do.I understand your point and your certainly entitled to your opinion. Just let me expand a bit on where I'm coming from. I'm convinced that there is a deal to be made to find a competent 4-5 starter that's not going to bankrupt the already barren farm system. Do I know who that is? No, but there are always guys available. You say you'll take your chances with Sale in a one game "playoff", but in the mean time let's suppose for a minute (unthinkable to some right now) that it you need to use Sale to avoid that one game "playoff". My point being that a couple of wins out of that 4-5 slot may be crucial in avoiding that. Not looking to be "that much better", looking to try to maintain what they have at the moment. I'll give you the fact that making a move doesn't guarantee that, but you're speaking of the future when there is no guarantee that Sale, Kimbrel or Martinez will be here. Given their on field importance to this team right now and the fact that they all might be gone after next season, I say yes, GFIN.
Not totally disagreeing on the merits of any of these guys, but I think the argument isn't about postseason composition, when that postseason could literally be one game. It's avoiding that Russian Roulette game. And a handful of starts from a better starter could easily make that difference."Probably an upgrade" just doesn't do it for me. And I think that's the best you get with any of these guys, unless you're giving up significant assets (that we may not even have) in a trade or going over the luxury tax. If anything, I'd rather expend the bullets we have on a back-end bullpen arm. That's more important than a 5th starter in the post-season. I also don't think there's a need to have both Johnson and Velazquez as swing men in the pen. Adding a good relief arm would lengthen the pen in that regard, too.
I'm not sure where anyone has suggested this. Not having that guy may mean the difference in winning the division vs having to play the Wild Card game. As for names, do I have any? No one specific, but I also don't have the baseball acumen, resources and connections of DD and the Red Sox front office. With Wright out and Rodriguez seemingly for some time, do we rely on both Johnson and Velazquez as starters?And you hate the idea of some other teams 4-5 starter making the start instead? Any starter you get is going to be worse than Sale, Porcello, Price or EdRod. If there was a clear cut upgrade, I'd be all for it but trading for fringe average players can result in Nunez 2017 or Nunez 2018. If you had the names of those 4/5 SPs that the Sox could acquire, the conversation might change a little. Most of us just don't see any realistic targets given what we have to offer.
Is Tyson Ross a reasonable target? He makes pennies and is a FA after the year. SD is going nowhere. What would he cost to acquire and would you really want him starting a 1 game playoff? It's easy to say the Sox should acquire a 4/5 that you feel comfortable with starting in a 1 game playoff, but naming 4/5s that actually fit that criteria is much, much harder.
"Probably an upgrade" just doesn't do it for me. And I think that's the best you get with any of these guys, unless you're giving up significant assets (that we may not even have) in a trade or going over the luxury tax. If anything, I'd rather expend the bullets we have on a back-end bullpen arm. That's more important than a 5th starter in the post-season. I also don't think there's a need to have both Johnson and Velazquez as swing men in the pen. Adding a good relief arm would lengthen the pen in that regard, too.
Not necessarily looking to add wins. Looking more to minimize any ground lost due to the current DL situation with the starting rotation.One thing that gets glossed over in this "win now" vs "build sustainably" vs "WTF can we even trade, for who" debate is that getting "a couple of wins" improvement out of a deadline acquisition is really, really hard to do.
In order to improve your true talent expectations by a single win at the deadline, you have to get a true talent 3 WAR guy. If you want to improve by two wins, good luck finding a 6 WAR player just hanging around. Those improvements get even harder to find when you are trying to upgrade a team with as few real holes as this team has.
The Red Sox can sit pat or go all in here, but either way it is probably impossible for them to add more than a win, if they can even do that.
A combination of them, Beeks, Cuevas and Pomeranz.I'm not sure where anyone has suggested this. Not having that guy may mean the difference in winning the division vs having to play the Wild Card game. As for names, do I have any? No one specific, but I also don't have the baseball acumen, resources and connections of DD and the Red Sox front office. With Wright out and Rodriguez seemingly for some time, do we rely on both Johnson and Velazquez as starters?
That's still a matter of trying to add wins.Not necessarily looking to add wins. Looking more to minimize any ground lost due to the current DL situation with the starting rotation.
Dozier is also 31, on pace to put up a much different overall offensive season then he did in 2016-2017, and it's the Twins we are talking about being on the hook for that QO money here in the event he decides to pass on the risk of seeing the same general market treatment as a lot of other guys who were supposed to get paid last off-season.I see it the other way around—it would take more than a cold spring for the Twins not to offer a QO.
Brian Dozier has the 14th-most fWAR among position players since 2016, and he’s a plus defender on track to play his fifth consecutive season of 150+ games at a key defensive position. He’s getting paid.
Exactly. Well put, especially the bolded. This isn't exactly going to be the Blue Jays getting David Cone.I agree 100%. Also I think people tend to overestimate the value of midseason acquisitions, or at least to treat that value too much as providing some kind of certainty rather than just a marginal improvement of chances. There's no single player or combination of players -- certainly none that we have the assets to acquire -- that would turn our championship chances from "pretty good, better than most" to "virtual lock". Teams can do that in basketball, where individual talent trumps everything else. But in baseball, not so much.
But ultimately, even leaving that aside, I have to admit that I love the chase as much as the kill, maybe more. The essence of what makes baseball beautiful for me lies in watching a good team excel consistently and win the majority of its games. I think I enjoyed being a fan in 1998-2003--yes, I said 2003--more than in 2012-2015, even counting 2013. Partly because Pedro and Nomar, but partly because that team was good, and fun to watch, and in the thick of things, year after year. To me that experience > sucking most of the time and winning it all once.
Cot's has them within $600K of the upper threshold. The Pearce trade, and the fairly specific amount of cash Toronto sent with him to offset his remaining salary, is pretty definitive evidence that the Cot's figures are as close to accurate as we're going to get. It was just enough to squeak his salary under the wire with a reasonable margin to account for errors in estimates (specifically benefits and pro-rated salaries for the shuttle guys).Anyone have an accurate read of where the Sox payroll is wrt the luxury tax?
And we don't even have a Freddy Sanchez to piss away for that outcome.It’s likely to be more like the 2003 Red Sox getting Jeff Suppan
Ed:responding to PP’s Cone comment
A factor to consider when it comes to the 4/5 starter types not acquiring significant assets - at no point is a team going to just up and trade a 4/5 starter type to the Red Sox without calling the MFY first, who can definitely outbid the Red Sox on this. Their starting pitching needs are far greater than ours and while right now they're fishing in the high end pond so far rumors point to them not liking the prices. If Cashman's deadline move choices are emptying the farm on a front line starter or move a couple mid-tier pieces to get Machado and block the Red Sox' acquisition of a 4/5 SP or two I'm pretty sure he'd take the later.Who is the 4/5 starter who is better than Johnson/Velazquez and doesn't require significant assets or payroll to acquire? The only two I've seen proposed who could fit that bill if you squint are Clayton Richard (assets?) and Matt Harvey (performance?).
That's assuming WAR is distributed evenly throughout the season, which it isn't (see: JBJ). The larger point of finding "a couple of wins" from a deadline acquisition is valid. We also don't know when we trade for, say, a 3 WAR player if we're going to get the good, bad, or mediocre performance that all players experience through a season. In two months, we may get a couple wins; we could also lose a couple - especially if he's replacing someone who has performed well to this point, even if his true talent is higher.One thing that gets glossed over in this "win now" vs "build sustainably" vs "WTF can we even trade, for who" debate is that getting "a couple of wins" improvement out of a deadline acquisition is really, really hard to do.
In order to improve your true talent expectations by a single win at the deadline, you have to get a true talent 3 WAR guy. If you want to improve by two wins, good luck finding a 6 WAR player just hanging around. Those improvements get even harder to find when you are trying to upgrade a team with as few real holes as this team has.
The Red Sox can sit pat or go all in here, but either way it is probably impossible for them to add more than a win, if they can even do that.
I won't argue that. But I think one is extremely hard pressed to find a guy who would be more than Russian Roulette vis a vis HV/BJ when trying to avoid the Russian Roulette of the wildcard. The only way to "guarantee" a handful of better starts that could make a difference is by getting someone significantly better than what we have.Not totally disagreeing on the merits of any of these guys, but I think the argument isn't about postseason composition, when that postseason could literally be one game. It's avoiding that Russian Roulette game. And a handful of starts from a better starter could easily make that difference.
I'm not really advocating for going to get a bullpen arm, especially right now. But I do think it's a better use of resources to improve the team's outlook than trading for a mediocre starter when we have mediocre starters who have pitched well.Much like starting pitching, I think any bullpen arm they add wouldn't be much better than Joe Kelly or Heath Hembree, and they already potentially have a bunch of those. I guess they could luck into a Brad Ziegler again but I wouldn't count on it. If they want a 3rd arm to go with Kimbrel and Barnes, it's going to have to be Thornburg, Buttrey, Braiser or some surprise.
This team isn't really in a place to make improvements. Any move they can afford to possibly make isn't even guaranteed to improve the team. The only real upgrade I see is Dozier. Everything else seems to be shuffling the deck chairs.
While true, this isn't really relevant because we can't even hope to predict who is going to over or underperform over those two months. All we can do is get the players we think are most likely to be better than what we have and estimate how much they will actually help us. If we trade for someone expected to be worth about 1 WAR over the remainder of the season, we should increase our projected average-case win total by 1, but it is implicitly understood that the error bars for that players real-world impact over that period of time are very large.That's assuming WAR is distributed evenly throughout the season, which it isn't (see: JBJ). The larger point of finding "a couple of wins" from a deadline acquisition is valid. We also don't know when we trade for, say, a 3 WAR player if we're going to get the good, bad, or mediocre performance that all players experience through a season. In two months, we may get a couple wins; we could also lose a couple - especially if he's replacing someone who has performed well to this point, even if his true talent is higher.
If he's made available, teams would be lining up to get him. Teams that could outbid the Red Sox without breaking a sweat. So no, the Red Sox could not get somebody like him.Just throwing it out there - not saying it’s likely or even possible - but if the Angels were to sell, could we get somebody like Tyler Skaggs? Not an FA until 2021. Could be an interesting route to pursue, should it make itself present.
Why do people ever think this is a good idea? No, no, hell no.I realize this hasn't gone well in the past and he hasn't pitched well lately but how about stretching out Joe Kelly temporarily for five innings and going with Barnes or Hembree in the late innings or trading for Zach Britton to fill that 8th inning hole. Not ideal but since there isn't much starting pitching out there...
Brad Ziegler was a signfiicant improvement because that year's bullpen was in considerably worse shape than this year's. I don't think that vintage Ziegler is better than present day Kelly or Hembree. The most important thing the Sox need is injury insurance, at least to get through the regular season.Much like starting pitching, I think any bullpen arm they add wouldn't be much better than Joe Kelly or Heath Hembree, and they already potentially have a bunch of those. I guess they could luck into a Brad Ziegler again but I wouldn't count on it.
I don't know what the hell I was thinking. Please note I wrote that at 7am before coffee... I think I read triples as 3B. Amount of triples as amount of games played at third. He's also played tons at 2nd base and a few at home base too.Did you see his game threads? He is barely lucid!
Here's the actual interview from DrellichKennedy says the Sox are willing to cross the highest lux tax level in the right situation.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/07/red-sox-trade-rumors-luxury-tax-starting-pitcher-rotation.html
thanks... Though Again, I think its still not likely unless someone really special drops into our lapHere's the actual interview from Drellich
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-willing-pay-highest-luxury-tax-weighing-need-starting-pitcher
I still think the whole "has to be the right special someone" mindset here is being too heavily overstated based on a general principle value rather then the actual penalty in question itself. Especially with Kennedy hinting around at the hump appeal they might see in even "the obscure speed-on-the-bases [type] or you know, last guy out of the bullpen."thanks... Though Again, I think its still not likely unless someone really special drops into our lap
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/03/06/will-red-sox-payroll-keep-them-out-trade-market/oq51rVj8wT9fk1HzTXeN4J/story.htmlNonetheless, the cost isn’t so high as to seem prohibitive. If the Sox believe they have a legitimate shot at winning a World Series, the draft-pick penalty seems like an unlikely reason to keep the team from making the trades that could push it over the top. The incrementally improved odds of winning a World Series would seem worth the incrementally lower odds of drafting a potential big league regular.
I agree, and I think we can whittle this down. If the Sox are ready to exceed the limit, it may make sense to get someone who can slot into next year's rotation.Ya, I'm coming around on the fact it wouldn't exactly cripple the franchise if they went over for a year, but wouldn't be a good idea in practice.
That said I don't see a worthwhile piece or two (or three) worth it so think it would be silly to go over for a marginal improvement.
They wouldn't have had enough to match up with the O's for Machado, so I don't see an impact player out there even as an out of the blue thing - as in, no other team saw coming either.
Can we bookmark this deal too, so we can flush out these nonsensical ideas that even MVP caliber rentals cost building block type players? Devers would have been a ridiculous overpay based on the O's package received. They did well for themselves but no cost controlled big leaguers or blue chippers.
To clarify your point here, as we're all trying to recalibrate our sense of the trade market:Can we bookmark this deal too, so we can flush out these nonsensical ideas that even MVP caliber rentals cost building block type players? I'm not saying dozens of posters thought Devers would have been the price tag. But our beat guys who should know better were floating that stuff. He would have been a massive ovepay. They did well for themselves but no cost controlled big leaguers or blue chippers.
Much more succinctly put than my nerd rage ramblings. Thanks.To clarify your point here, as we're all trying to recalibrate our sense of the trade market:
Yusniel Diaz, expected to be the centerpiece in the Machado deal, is a 21 year old OF in AA. He is in the midst of a power surge this season, but before this year he was in the back half of a few top-100 prospect lists: 90 and 73. He's two weeks older than Rafael Devers.
That's the centerpiece for an MVP caliber, middle-of-the-order bat SS. Because rental.
Did you know that E-Rod and Wright were going to get hurt, Pomeranz would struggle getting AAA hitters out and Beeks showed nothing back then?I was insistent that this team needed another SP, and was laughed out of this thread a couple of weeks back. Peek my head back in and all kinds of names are being bandied about....
I did a few days ago when I suggested it, but wasn't able to provide the name of a player who might fit the bill under the constraints that people here imposed on the team.Did you know that E-Rod and Wright were going to get hurt, Pomeranz would struggle getting AAA hitters out and Beeks showed nothing back then?
It's not an outlandish idea to add someone now if they are good. But a few weeks ago, the rotation was healthy and had some depth. There wasn't any room to add anyone.I did a few days ago when I suggested it, but wasn't able to provide the name of a player who might fit the bill under the constraints that people here imposed on the team.