I would bet Cubs or Dodgers. Theo loves making waiver claims. If he some how got to Boston they would absolutely put a claim in. Stranger things have happened I guess.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Red Sox starting pitching going forward
- Thread starter Dan to Theo to Ben
- Start date
Let's go through the list of teams that have claim status before the Red Sox and see who would have the need and the financial wherewithal to absorb that contract if it came down to it.
In order
Colorado
Chicago Cubs
Arizona
San Diego
NY Mets
Miami
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Pittsburgh
San Fransisco
St. Louis
Washington
Milwaukee
LA Dodgers
Texas
Houston
If he got past the Cubs, does one of the NL teams contending for a playoff spot such as Atlanta, SF, Milwaukee, or Washington take him? Would the Dodgers do it?
In order
Chicago Cubs
Atlanta
San Fransisco
Washington
Milwaukee
LA Dodgers
Texas
If he got past the Cubs, does one of the NL teams contending for a playoff spot such as Atlanta, SF, Milwaukee, or Washington take him? Would the Dodgers do it?
Any team making the playoffs would take him if he cost nothing but salary. He would improve your chances of winning this year and you flip him in the off season.
Well .. You know Phillie isn't going to give him away so it would be just a blocking move in most cases. LA probably has the best chance of actually getting him.Niastri said:
I would reckon the Sox chances at less than 5%.
Amaro has made it pretty plain that he's going to cost more than salary. The Cubs are interesting since (a) Theo has the pieces to make a trade and (b) Hamels would be a good salary-controlled first step toward revamping the pitching rotation.Niastri said:
Nick Cafardo @nickcafardo 4m
No team has scouted the Red Sox more than the Phillies this year. They're watching in St. Louis again.
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/497196755763486720
I would think this is in regards to Hamels ?
No team has scouted the Red Sox more than the Phillies this year. They're watching in St. Louis again.
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/497196755763486720
I would think this is in regards to Hamels ?
I know he's hurt but if you are the Sox and looking for a guy who can stabilize your staff and is signed to short years, isn't Cliff Lee a more likely target? According to BBRef he is signed thru 2015, 5 yrs/$120M (11-15) & 16 vesting option. Have to figure the price would be more reasonable and the Phillies might eat some of the money.
Niastri said:
He's harder to flip given that he can only be sent to 9 teams without his consent.
That's my point, though. Who cares? It's not like we need him this year. The point is is that he signed for affordable dollars, for this team anyway, short years, which is what the team is looking for. If anything, Lee being hurt makes it more likely that the Phillies would throw in money.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
You want to give up to 52 million to a 35 year old pitcher coming off two elbow elbow injuries ? If the Phillies subsidized half the future salary commitments then I could see it as an interesting roll of the dice. Otherwise stay far awayVan Everyman said:
Note : the 2016 option is a vesting option for 200 IP .. Or an unlikely 400 ip in 2014/2015 or a 12 million buyout.
Is there some major league edict that says Red Sox pitchers have to walk more batters than they strike out? The Red Sox haven't had a starter strike out more batters than they've walked in two weeks. That's beyond pathetic. I can't even imagine the 1998 Devil Rays having such a streak, and the last one to better that is gone.
mt8thsw9th said:
Vazquez might be a little too aggressive setting up off the corners. Seems like quite a few pitches of late have been delivered right in to the mitt, but he set up too far off the plate to get the call.
jasail said:
Right, I posted last week that if former pitching coach Bill Fischer is watching these games, all the walks just might kill him.
Some day, I hope our starter will have more K's than BB's. The Red Sox have not have a starter with more K's than BB's since July 25th - Jon Lester's last start with the Red Sox.
Since then, the Sox starters have posted a collective BB/K ratio of 41/28 in 48 IP.
To say that is a disappointment is a gross understatement.
Since then, the Sox starters have posted a collective BB/K ratio of 41/28 in 48 IP.
To say that is a disappointment is a gross understatement.
jscola85 said:
What's amazing is they have done that with arguably two of the best framing catchers in baseball receiving. What explains the lack of strikeouts? Poor stuff? Poor pitch calling?
rodderick said:
Why not just poor pitching? "Poor" being a catch-all for everything from lack of command to lack of aggressiveness in the strikezone. ("It takes balls to throw strikes," someone once said.) It's been a pile of rookies, one game from Lackey, and the pitcher formerly known as "Clay Buchholz"
joe dokes said:
Sure, but there have been games where the pitching hasn't necessarily been all that poor, and still the strikeouts have been few and far between. The Buchholz start was a shit show all around, but Kelly's wasn't, Ranaudo's wasnt, RDLR's wasn't, and they still walked more guys than they struck out. Probably just a matter of SSS but it's interesting to see such a streak.
Jayson Stark @jaysonst 6m
To answer questions about earlier tweet, source says previous list of teams Hamels would OK trade to was wrong. Cubs OK, but Red Sox blocked
https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/497483274173034498
To answer questions about earlier tweet, source says previous list of teams Hamels would OK trade to was wrong. Cubs OK, but Red Sox blocked
https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/497483274173034498
I know most players usually have a NTC to a team like BOS so they can get leverage, but most of the time those players usually are near the end of the contract. Would it really require something like an extension to get him to waive it? Or is he looking for something else?E5 Yaz said:
soxhop411 said:
To have his butt kissed?
Seriously though, why can't it be as simple as Hamels doesn't really want to pitch in Boston? I doubt it's there as a leverage thing because like you say, it's only leverage for an extension toward the end of the deal. But by the time Hamels is near the end of his deal, assuming that when he signed it he expected that he'd still be in Philly at that point, he's going to be a 10-5 guy anyway (as of roughly mid-August 2016). So he'll have his leverage over any team at the point where an extension makes any kind of sense. Which leads me to conclude that the teams on his block list are there because he doesn't want to go to those teams.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
It could be as simple as him not wanting to play in Boston, but players routinely get a list of teams they can't be traded to and the teams that make those lists are the bigger market teams that can make big trades. He could have no opinion on Boston whatsoever and Boston would still likely make the list of teams he has to approve a trade to.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/08/ben_cherington_no_ace_no_problem
I don't see that this article and Ben's comments about not needing an ace have been discussed elsewhere on the board. If am wrong, mea culpa, and please limit conversation around the issue to that thread.
But if it has not been mentioned, this is the gist of it:
1. Ben is setting us up for the reality that Lester isn't coming back and this is beginning the spin control.
2. Ben really believes this.
3. Ben is trying to reduce Lester or any other ace like pitcher's leverage by professing not to need an ace.
4. Ben's mouth is moving while others whisper in his ear.
The only possibility that doesn't make me wretch is number 3, and even that I think is either counter productive or will be ignored.
One, I hate that they will likely not bring back Lester. That's been discussed to death so no need to say more. Two, if Ben believes the Sox can win a World Series without a real number one, I hope he is prepared to list the teams who have done that. There may be some but I don't believe it's a long list. In Boston, 2004 had Schill and Pedro, 2007 had Beckett, and 2013 had Lester. Four, I can't even talk about the "Ben as Pawn angle," as it's too ridiculous and mickey mouse.
I don't see that this article and Ben's comments about not needing an ace have been discussed elsewhere on the board. If am wrong, mea culpa, and please limit conversation around the issue to that thread.
But if it has not been mentioned, this is the gist of it:
There are a lot of ways to look at this and they are not all mutually exclusive:
1. Ben is setting us up for the reality that Lester isn't coming back and this is beginning the spin control.
2. Ben really believes this.
3. Ben is trying to reduce Lester or any other ace like pitcher's leverage by professing not to need an ace.
4. Ben's mouth is moving while others whisper in his ear.
The only possibility that doesn't make me wretch is number 3, and even that I think is either counter productive or will be ignored.
One, I hate that they will likely not bring back Lester. That's been discussed to death so no need to say more. Two, if Ben believes the Sox can win a World Series without a real number one, I hope he is prepared to list the teams who have done that. There may be some but I don't believe it's a long list. In Boston, 2004 had Schill and Pedro, 2007 had Beckett, and 2013 had Lester. Four, I can't even talk about the "Ben as Pawn angle," as it's too ridiculous and mickey mouse.
I dont think what he said really means anything. If he said we need an Ace, people would be complaining "WHY DID YOU TRADE LESTER?" and B if we did not get an ace in the offseason people would be saying "WELL YOU SAID WE NEEDED AN ACE!!"TheoShmeo said:
IMO we still will go after Lester and other aces in the offseason..
Rasputin said:
Witness the 2013 Boston Red Sox. Lester pitched like an ace in the postseason, of course, but during the regular season? Nope.
Lester: 15-8, 3.75 era, 109 era+
Lackey: 10-13, 3.52 era, 116 era+
Buchholz: 12-1, 1.74 era, 234 era+, but only pitched 16 games and nobody would consider him to have been an ace, despite his gaudy numbers
Of course, it all depends on the definition of "ace". A guy can be an "ace" over the course of several seasons but the WS-winning year he wouldn't be considered one. Or he could generally not be considered an ace but yet have one spectacular year where he pitches like one.
You have some examples of this? Looking back over the last 10 winners every team seemed to have one or at least had a guy pitching like one in that season.Rasputin said:
Lester, Cain (2x), Carpenter (2x), Sabathia, Hamels, Beckett, Buehrle (144 era+), and Schilling.
Rasputin said:
I think "ace" can be an extremely variable thing, meaning that even if you don't have a nominal ace to start a season, it doesn't mean one can't emerge from what you have. Pedro and Schilling in 2004 were obvious aces when they were acquired. But in 2007, no one went into that season saying "Josh Beckett is the ACE of the staff". He emerged as one as the season progressed and filled the role well in the post-season. He kinda ceased to be that guy in the years that followed though.
Essentially, to win a championship you usually need at least one guy to pitch like an "ace" through the season and especially through the post-season. But who that "ace" is doesn't necessary have to be predetermined or anointed before the season even starts. He can certainly come out of nowhere, or at least emerge unexpectedly.
Did last year's Red Sox have an ace? Lester was very good last year, but not as good as this year. Lackey was terrific and Clay was outstanding, but wasn't fully healthy the whole season.
Last year's playoff field -- certain teams had one: Tampa (Price), Detroit (Scherzer), St. Louis (Wanwright), Los Angeles (Kershaw)
Teams that didn't: Oakland (Colon, Gray); Pittsburgh (Liriano, Cole, Burnett); Atlanta (Minor, Teheran, Medlen)
Those teams all had exceptional pitchers, arguably staffs with multiple #2's, but no nine-figure ace.
Last year's playoff field -- certain teams had one: Tampa (Price), Detroit (Scherzer), St. Louis (Wanwright), Los Angeles (Kershaw)
Teams that didn't: Oakland (Colon, Gray); Pittsburgh (Liriano, Cole, Burnett); Atlanta (Minor, Teheran, Medlen)
Those teams all had exceptional pitchers, arguably staffs with multiple #2's, but no nine-figure ace.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Another way to say this is that something that unites championship teams is the presence of players in the midst of career years. Typically the examples I think of are hitters from the 2010 Giants: Aubrey Huff (5.9 WAR) and Andres Torres (6.5 WAR), the coincidence of whose career years turned a decent team into a legit contender. No one saw those two coming; Huff was signed off the scrap heap and Torres was a career minor leaguer who began the year as a fifth OF. But they thrived, and the team won it all. 12 WAR from the scrap heap is no joke.
But it happens on the pitching side, also. Buerhle has already come up, but how about CJ Wilson on the 2010-2011 Rangers? He put up very ace-like 134 and 150 ERA+ in those seasons. Nothing he'd done before (or since) suggested that he had that potential, and that contribution was a huge part in two pennants, even if they couldn't quite win it all.
If Ben's thinking how I am, his subtext might be something like: let's see if one of the young guys can turn into the Ace-type pitcher we need before we spend $150m on a guy who could collapse just like CJ.
(Personally, I'd spend the $150m — it's not like you don't want too many high-end SP — but it's not my money.)
Aces:
- Pitch deep into games for multiple starts
- Provide reliable and predictable rest for bullpen
- Minimize long losing streaks
- Team enters game feeling they have a good chance to win that day...i.e., they don't need to be perfect
- Set theme for remainder of pitching staff
- Impact the lineup scheduled for opposing team
- Impact the in-game strategy of the opposing team
- Provide matchup issues in short playoff series
So, would the statisticians favor a rotation of league-average, 6 ip, 150 innings/per year pitchers...
Or a staff anchored by one or more "aces" pitching deep into games approaching 200 innings paired with the remainder of a rotation that brings the team pitching stats right in line with the one above?
"Tomorrow we have Pedro, then Schilling...and anything can happen in a game 7"
- Pitch deep into games for multiple starts
- Provide reliable and predictable rest for bullpen
- Minimize long losing streaks
- Team enters game feeling they have a good chance to win that day...i.e., they don't need to be perfect
- Set theme for remainder of pitching staff
- Impact the lineup scheduled for opposing team
- Impact the in-game strategy of the opposing team
- Provide matchup issues in short playoff series
So, would the statisticians favor a rotation of league-average, 6 ip, 150 innings/per year pitchers...
Or a staff anchored by one or more "aces" pitching deep into games approaching 200 innings paired with the remainder of a rotation that brings the team pitching stats right in line with the one above?
"Tomorrow we have Pedro, then Schilling...and anything can happen in a game 7"
Yes, but as you note, that was a greatest modern team. Positionally, it may well have been the best team of the second half of the 20th century. And it had a very reliable pen.E5 Yaz said:
The fact is that the RS have thrived on aces this century. Very odd to now say they are not terribly important.
Not attributing this to you, but if all this is code for "we'll slip Shields/Masterson in for Lester and be fine" I am not buying.
dcmissle said:
The Red Sox did not have an ace last year. Lester (and to a slightly lesser degree, Lackey) pitched like an ace in the playoffs, but that's not the same thing as entering the season as an "ace". Lester's total body of work in the 2013 regular season was that of a good, not great, starting pitcher. He went nuts in the playoffs, thankfully.
If you considered Lester or Lackey an ace a year ago, why wouldn't you consider Shields an ace now?
No one wins a World Series without good pitchers/pitchers pitching well.Minneapolis Millers said:
Paradigm said:
I think this is right, but the problem is the Red Sox don't figure to have a staff with multiple #2s in 2015. Currently the rotation consists of Buchholz (major question mark), Kelly (3/4-type starter), and kids who will probably be back-of-the-rotation types at least in the short term. I don't think anyone expects them to stand pat, but it seems like adding an ace is an easier path than trying to add three #2-types, because currently they don't have anyone who figures to be as good as Lester, Lackey, or Buchholz were in 2013.
Abstractly, I'd say a team doesn't need an ace, but pragmatically I think the 2015 Red Sox do need one.
Super Nomario said:
Considering this particular offseason's free agent market, it should be much easier to acquire an ace than multiple #2s.
The bigger problem by far is assessing whether there actually is a #2 starter on-hand. Buchholz simply doesn't look like he can be that guy.
Well, they got twelve starts through June 9 from Buchholz in which they went 11-1 and his ERA was 1.71.ivanvamp said:
I don't think anyone is saying it isn't important, just that it isn't necessary. Look at the mid to late nineties Indians teams. They made the world series twice. If they'd had an ace they might have won one.dcmissle said: