The 2015 Rotation: Where do you stand? (1/20/15)

[dwhogan]

 
Match up decisions when filling out a lineup card or making a pinch hit decision are an entirely different level of decision than whether or not to sign a player to a massive contract.

Greater sample size allows for a more well supported guess, but even with a huge sample size where stats can divine a 99% CI, there is 1/100 chances our estimated performance will fall outside of expected range. Sss is just less well informed, but not necessarily incorrect as a previous poster mentioned. If the two ultimate values are "knowing what a player's total career looks like" (Jeter) and "having no idea what a player will perform like at any level" (kids starting little league this spring) then we are trying to use comfortable statistics to guess at the former while being as close to the latter as possible (less cost due to risk).All of that aside, 2-9 means very little to me; the one other team involved in that stat is the ONLY team excluded from potential future performances should he sign with us. It's a relatively worthless stat methinks.

 

[jasvlm]

I voted for the flexibility of a trade deadline move, but I'm in agreement that a Shields deal that comes in at 4/90 or below is probably worth doing.  Shields' rep as a big game pitcher couldn't be further from the truth, but his impact on the other members of the rotation is something that may well be underrated.  Guys like Cobb and Archer in TB, and then Duffy, Davis and Ventura in KC all have mentioned the fact the Shields was incredibly helpful in being a model for what a pro pitcher should look like, and also has taught a nasty changeup grip to a bunch of arms (Cobb apparently 1st, who then taught Odorizzi).  With the promising young arms the Red Sox have bubbling up to the majors, it may well behoove them to provide a veteran leadership presence with Shields rep for this kind of thing.  They really could end up getting bumps in performance from multiple young fellows on top of Shields actual mound work, and that could ripple through the organization in a chain reaction as the next wave matriculates to Boston.  As I've said, I voted for flexibility and a trade deadline acquisition, but the idea of Shields for 4 years and 90 or less is very nearly the equal to that position.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

There are a lot of opinions on the various rumors and it got me to thinking about what my preferred path forward would be with regard to the rotation. With names like Strasburg and Zimmermann floating around, and James Shields still on the market with rumors of him being willing to take a 4 year deal out there, Ben has quite a few options if he wants to act now. He has also built a very solid stable of starting pitchers and can wait until they get into the season to explore upgrade options if it is necessary.
 
Acting now means parting with resources. With Shields is just more money, but it's more money over the cap meaning a larger tax hit this year and less wiggle room to get back under the threshold next year. They have a ton of contracts coming off the books in Victorino, Napoli, Porcello, Masterson, Mujica, and Breslow, and have the option to part ways with Buchholz if he has another awful season. They could, potentially, shed up to roughly 70 million if they wanted to. They will very likely retain some of those players, but there is room to fit Shields, even at 20 million or so, in the long term.
 
The other cost for acting now is prospects and names like Zimmermann and Strasburg will cost of a lot of them. Both would be difficult to lock up before free agency, and even if they could extend them would be looking at enormous contracts so the cost in prospects has to be weighed with the understanding that it's either a small amount of control they are getting back or that you've just shipped valuable cost controlled assets out for the right to pay someone market rate anyway. Having an exclusive window to work out an extension has some value, though, whether that's before the trade is made official or just the ability to negotiate for a year or two while you control the player, but in the end acquiring one of those two will cost several high upside low cost young players and possibly a boatload of cash anyway.
 
Then there's the option to wait and see what they have. This is probably the safest route, but does carry some risk. If Buchholz is who we saw last year, Kelly can't handle a full workload, and Masterson is permanently messed up from his injury last year, they could be in a bunch of trouble and might end up paying more in season to fix the problem than they would have by acting now. It's also possible that Porcello and Miley take steps forward and Buchholz looks more like his 2010 self than the 2014 train wreck we winced at for 5 months last year and there's no pressing need to add another starter.
 
So what is the best path forward? Well, since all of the various pitching threads seem to be focusing in on specific players and rumors as they pop up, how about a broader look the general approach from here? I'm curious what sosh is thinking right now and figured taking a snapshot as the winter is starting to wind down might be interesting, especially if we want to look back in 6 months to see how much things have changed.
 
My vote goes to the wait and see approach. While names like Strasburg and Zimmermann are enticing as hell, the prospect cost is going to be high and at the end of the day, I think I'd rather they give the current rotation a chance and if the need is clearly there in July, address it then. Otherwise, next winter's market will have plenty of options to pick from.

Having read through all the arguments on various threads I have come to the conclusion that any pitcher obtained for 1-2  years would not improve the team enough to warrant giving up prospects and talent that we have control over for much longer.  I.E. 2 years of Strasburg is not worth giving up 5 years of Betts and/or 5 years of X in addition to top level pitching prospects. Another way to look at it is STRASBURG 3.5 WAR - BETTS 2.1 WAR (as well as the other prospects) leaves us at best even in the trade but we actually lose 3 years of team control.  In the end we are better off staying put until mid summer to see where things stand. Even at that point a three month rental needs to come at a reasonable price.

 

[Mike F]

IN RE: veteran pitcher as teacher

I'd much rather have Pedro work on change ups
with the kids

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

IN RE: veteran pitcher as teacher

I'd much rather have Pedro work on change ups
with the kids

 
If Pedro can teach the kids how to have freakish fingers like him, he truly is magic. I'm not suggesting Pedro has nothing to offer as a mentor... quite the opposite... but his change up was due at least as much to physiology as it was to know-how. Even still, this is a pretty minor reason for signing Shields, so it shouldn't be much of a factor either way.

 

[lxt]

It seems as if BC & the Sox will remain with what they have.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/01/red-sox-unlikely-to-make-significant-rotation-upgrade.html

 

[Pozo the Clown]

It seems as if BC & the Sox will remain with what they have.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/01/red-sox-unlikely-to-make-significant-rotation-upgrade.html

 
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in public statements of this nature.  Even if the Sox brass is internally convinced that they need another front-line starter, the public "spin" would be that they're perfectly content with what they already have.  

 

[jasvlm]

 
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in public statements of this nature.  Even if the Sox brass is internally convinced that they need another front-line starter, the public "spin" would be that they're perfectly content with what they already have.  

This is correct.  Statements like this are rarely of any substance, and are frequently used to leverage existing negotiations in some way.  If the Sox decide that they are interested in signing Shields, my guess is that they won't suddenly alert the media.  That said, it would not surprise me (or disappoint) if this actually came to pass, and the Sox went into 2015 with the rotation options they now feature.  Lots can and almost certainly will change as guys start reporting to spring training in a few weeks, but for now, Shields is waiting in limbo for a market that has yet to play out as he has hoped.  I think he'd be very lucky to get 5 years from anyone, and 4/90 might be the best he can hope for.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Jeff Sullivan has a Fangraphs piece ranking the Sox 28/30 in terms of benefit of adding Shields, because their current rotation is strong at the bottom. The advantage of adding an ace would come in the postseason - but (yeah, sss) let's just say there's no evidence Shields would help much there. If a pretty good deal for Hamels or Strasberg came along I'd have to consider it, but I'd be satisfied heading for July with this rotation.

 

[snowmanny]

Jeff Sullivan has a Fangraphs piece ranking the Sox 28/30 in terms of benefit of adding Shields, because their current rotation is strong at the bottom. The advantage of adding an ace would come in the postseason - but (yeah, sss) let's just say there's no evidence Shields would help much there. If a pretty good deal for Hamels or Strasberg came along I'd have to consider it, but I'd be satisfied heading for July with this rotation.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/finding-a-place-for-james-shields/
 
Link