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

What should the front office do about the rotation going forward (from 1/20/15)?

  • Make a trade for one of the big name pitchers rumored to be available (Hamels, Zimmermann, Strasburg

    Votes: 58 28.4%
  • Sign Shields.

    Votes: 16 7.8%
  • Sign another solid but not spectacular starter (Vogelsong, Young, Kendrick, ect)

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Sign an injury reclamation project (Billingsly, Beachy, ect) to stash in the minors.

    Votes: 18 8.8%
  • Go into the season with what they have and reassess in late June/early July.

    Votes: 101 49.5%
  • Other.

    Votes: 3 1.5%

  • Total voters
    204

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
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.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Tricky to answer because it depends so much on what the actual costs are for Shields or the major trade targets. I'd certainly be in favor of upgrading if a favorable deal emerges, but assuming it won't, I also voted "wait and see."
 

Moosey

Mooseyed Farvin
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,226
CT
I would stand pat and assess as the season progresses.  There appeared to be a conscious effort to bring ground ballers over, so I am curious to see how this plays out once the games matter.  Certainly they would be better with an "ace" at the front, but to your point I am not convinced the cost is yet worth it.  In terms of fixing it if a lot goes south, they may also decide to essentially punt on the season so as not to have to overpay to try and correct; knowing there is a potentially better option after the season, at least in prospect terms.
 
Essentially, "my team is on the floor."
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,453
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Voted for re-assess in July. That being said the other options all depend on the prospect cost or contract (in Shields' case).

If they could get Shields for a 4/90 I'd do that as a first option. An Owens/Marrero/Margot for Hamels would be my second option. Otherwise I have no interest in swapping top 5 farm system guys for one , or even two year rentals.

There was a link hereabouts from Sickles whereupon he was rating the Sox farm system .. The top six or seven were all B rated or better. In Sickles world a B projects as a major league regular. This doesn't even take into account Betts and X.

I'm not adverse to trading prospects but, in my mind, need to get cost certainty back.

Edit: Strasburg could be an exception .. He has a ridiculously low contract .. I'd do the Hamels deal for him as well.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,444
Boston, MA
Make an aggressive play for Strasburg or Zimmerman. With the lineup that we have a rotation of Strasburg-Porcello-Miley-Buchholz-Kelly/Masterson immediately makes us heavy favorites to win the division and the American League. Given that we have many more talented prospects than we have starting spots opening up any time soon on the major league roster (what with C, 2B, SS, 3B, LF and CF all filled for the next 5 years) it makes much more sense to prioritize this season and cash in the chips to get a real ace. I'd be on board with Zimmerman for a non-premium prospect package, or Strasburg for Betts. I don't think either of these guys will be available at the deadline; the time is now.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,716
I voted stay pat only because I think that's what is going to happen. We'd all like any one of Strasburg, Hamels, Shields, Zimmermann, or Lee if the price were right, but it is unlikely that the price is going to be right.
 
A package for Strasburg centered around Betts is the most intriguing, but I think the Nats would want too much more to make it work.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,691
Voted 'Go into the season with what they have', but like others I'm amenable to signing Shields for a reasonable 4/$90-ish deal if possible.
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
I like where they are and where they're going.  I voted stand pat and learn more about their in-house options.  Sox are the only team with separation from the rest of the AL East, so why overpay for anyone?  Assess where they are all through the season and make moves if they make sense and are warranted; they have the chips and the funds to do what they deem most beneficial, and I trust they will.
 

Pedro 4 99MVP

New Member
Dec 6, 2013
56
Maine
I voted to make a trade for an ace, with Zimmermann being the guy I would target. Obviously, he is more available now than he was prior to the Scherzer signing. I mentioned in a different thread that I would give up Swihart or Owens for him. Some guys that think all prospects will be all-stars will hammer me and mention how much WAR we will be trading away, how much cost saving we are trading away, etc.,  but we have more prospects than we have ML opportunities. If we get Zimmermann to be our "ace" and keep Betts, Bogaerts, and one of Shiwart/Owens, I would be happy. Throw in a couple other decent but not top prospects that probably will never have a spot in Boston, maybe one of which is a pitcher who can help the Nationals' bullpen.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Pedro 4 99MVP said:
I voted to make a trade for an ace, with Zimmermann being the guy I would target. Obviously, he is more available now than he was prior to the Scherzer signing. I mentioned in a different thread that I would give up Swihart or Owens for him. Some guys that think all prospects will be all-stars will hammer me and mention how much WAR we will be trading away, how much cost saving we are trading away, etc.,  but we have more prospects than we have ML opportunities. If we get Zimmermann to be our "ace" and keep Betts, Bogaerts, and one of Shiwart/Owens, I would be happy. Throw in a couple other decent but not top prospects that probably will never have a spot in Boston, maybe one of which is a pitcher who can help the Nationals' bullpen.
 
You realize Zimmermann is a free agent after 2015, right? When we talk about the value of "Zimmermann" we need to be clear that we are talking about the value of one year of Zimmermann.
 

Pilgrim

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2006
2,407
Jamaica Plain
If shields is willing to sign for ~100m, that's easily the best option.

He is older and slightly inferior to the other options, but that difference is in no way worth Swihart or especially Betts.

I'm not ideologically opposed to trading elite prospects, but considering the options this year and next year, plus the fact they already have a decent rotation, it doesn't make much sense right now.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,422
I voted stand pat because there are two things we don't know right now.
 
1. How much pressure do the Nationals feel to trade Strasburg or Zimmermann (and how much do the Phillies feel to trade Hamels)?
 
If the answer is "not so much that they won't hold out for fair value, even at the risk of failing to make a deal at all," then that's the end of it.  However, if the answer is "enough that they'll make the trade for the best offer they can find," then:
 
2. What would we need to put on the table to be the best offer?
 
If the answer is "Betts," "Bogaerts," or "more than one of Swihart/Owens/Margot/Devers," then count me out, because I feel more comfortable with the answers to these questions: a) Do I think we can compete with these five guys? and b) If we can compete but feel we need an upgrade in July, will we be able to get one?
 
Add it all up and guess at the answers to those first two questions, and on balance I am thinking the right play is to stand pat.
 
ETA: I wouldn't deal any of those six guys for a year of Zimmermann, btw, but I'd deal one of the last four in a Strasburg or Hamels trade.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,848
I voted wait and see.
 
As we saw in 2013, there isn't a premium for a half-year rental for pitchers, even a lackey or a lester type. It makes little sense to trade for a star pitcher for this year only, when a zimmerman/cueto could easily be available by then for less.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,737
I understand what they did, but there's a lot of risk in the current rotation.  You have four guys who put up ERA+s of 91, 86, 72, 63 last year.  There is reason for optimism for each one of them but the odds that all four return to close-to-best form seems slim.  The "ace" had a good year last year but had four straight years with an ERA+ of less than 100 prior to 2014, so it's far from a sure thing that even Porcello will be very good in 2015.  I really wish they had one more solid if not spectacular starter, especially with Buchholz and Masterson coming off of injuries. 
 
If everything pans out they could be very good.  On the other hand, there's enough of a fail risk here with the entire rotation that ditching Swihart,etc. in a GFIN move seems unwise.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Lurker sketz PMed this to me.
 


I voted other. Short of a swindle coming the sox way, I would plan to stand pat all year and reassess in the offseason when these 1 yr left guys hit the market. Small to intermediate moves are fine near the break as needs/opportunities arise, but I would not trade any of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Owens and likely Margot this year. I might be fine trading Vazquez and going with a stop-gap this year in the right deal, but would prefer not to. As a side note, with the decline of offense, I'm curious to see if avoiding "ace" level pitching salaries and instead going with 2's and 3's ends up being a sustainable market efficiency. Therefore I would stay away from Shields even at 4/90 to avoid tying up a rotation spot with an aging pitcher making over 20 per year to preserve the flexibility to sign one of next year's FA class (at an admittedly higher salary) in the event this does not prove viable.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,669
Rogers Park
I voted wait and see, but I would hope that Ben will be opportunistic about trades or signings.
 
Rizzo's track record of insisting on winning trades makes finding a good matchup with Washington unlikely. Hamels we've been over to death. Shields is interesting at a certain price point. But if it turns out that Rizzo loves Cecchini or something, it might be possible to make something happen. 
 
But I also think that the team has a legitimate if unexciting rotation (I'm higher than most here on Wade Miley) to go with what looks to be a top-3 offense. They also have three or four high-ceilinged SP prospects close to readiness. 
 
The division looks to be weak. They can afford to wait and see. 
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,100
Wesport, MA
Might as well sign Shields if he can drop to 4 years or under 100 mil. The Sox have the money (present, and flexibility going forward), and the 1st round draft pick is obviously protected in 2015. He has a good reputation as being helpful to younger pitchers and the stability/durability he potentially brings to the table would be a boon for the rotation. 
 
It kind of feels like the Lackey contact in late 2009 (premium money for a less than premium pitcher), which brings up some negative associations - however the Sox really could use another arm and he's the best one left. Again, only if the price/contract is reasonable. 
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,716
Pedro 4 99MVP said:
I voted to make a trade for an ace, with Zimmermann being the guy I would target. Obviously, he is more available now than he was prior to the Scherzer signing. I mentioned in a different thread that I would give up Swihart or Owens for him. Some guys that think all prospects will be all-stars will hammer me and mention how much WAR we will be trading away, how much cost saving we are trading away, etc.,  but we have more prospects than we have ML opportunities. If we get Zimmermann to be our "ace" and keep Betts, Bogaerts, and one of Shiwart/Owens, I would be happy. Throw in a couple other decent but not top prospects that probably will never have a spot in Boston, maybe one of which is a pitcher who can help the Nationals' bullpen.
 
Swihart for one year of Zimmermann is a huge overpay.  Catchers that hit are so immensely valuable that you have to give Swihart a shot, and you have no chance of re-signing Zimmermann unless you pay market price for him.

If there's anyone we should focus on it's Strasburg.  Maybe he's not available, but if he is, we have a good fit (Betts) and have some redundancy there (Castillo) and with two years of control remaining, perhaps we can buy out one of his non-FA years with a just below market rate extension.
 

Pedro 4 99MVP

New Member
Dec 6, 2013
56
Maine
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
You realize Zimmermann is a free agent after 2015, right? When we talk about the value of "Zimmermann" we need to be clear that we are talking about the value of one year of Zimmermann.
Yes I realize that it is only 1 year of Zimmermann. I also realize that the cost of starting pitching both in FA and in trades is high. I also realize that not all prospects pan out, and that not all of our top prospects will be on the Red Sox, even if they do end up being good. There isn't room for all of them. Would I hate to give up Swihart or Owens? Yes, but I don't think 1 of them plus a couple of lesser parts that we will probably never use is too much to give up to get 1 of the best SP in the game during his prime, even if it is for only 1 year. Maybe he signs an extension...bonus. 
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
I'd like to see Ben add at least another high-upside arm, with the caveat that, if it's by way of a trade, the transaction doesn't include Betts.  I'd also hate to see Swihart moved, even for Strasburg.  One more arm would be nice.  Exactly who that high-upside arm belongs to is contingent upon the acquisition cost.  A flyer on Beachy (depending on what he's looking for), a Betts-Bogaerts-Shiwart-FREE package for Hamels or a three or four-year deal for Shields could be the answer.  It all depends on the cost.   
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,300
Santa Monica
Stand pat, see how rotation evolves, see who gets injured, see where we need upgrades, make savvy moves in July.
 
I think we hit gold with Betts and want to see if another prospect steps up this year.  All we need is one of the AAA pitchers (or Kelly) to mature and ripen this spring/summer and that flexibility will give us $$$ to sign a top starter next year.
 
No thanks to a 33yr old Shields at $90MM-$100MM, save those shekels for a stud next year.  
 
The front office has spent more then enough this off-season, I'd rather see them show some restraint.
 
Patience is a virtue.
 

Pedro 4 99MVP

New Member
Dec 6, 2013
56
Maine
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
 
Swihart for one year of Zimmermann is a huge overpay.  Catchers that hit are so immensely valuable that you have to give Swihart a shot, and you have no chance of re-signing Zimmermann unless you pay market price for him.
If there's anyone we should focus on it's Strasburg.  Maybe he's not available, but if he is, we have a good fit (Betts) and have some redundancy there (Castillo) and with two years of control remaining, perhaps we can buy out one of his non-FA years with a just below market rate extension.
Assuming Swihart hits in the majors like he has in the minors, that is probably true. And I hope that his bat is legit at the ML level. That said, here is a crazy thought that hasn't been mentioned:
Would you trade Vazquez and a couple of prospects not in the top 5 for Zimmermann? We get by with Hanigan and a veteran backup until Swihart is ready, which might be by midseason. Washington has a catcher that is always hurt and not signed long term so they get a catcher of the future and a couple prospects that might be very good but probably will not be missed by the Red Sox. If Swihart's bat is as good as advertised, we may be looking at trading Vazquez next winter anyway. If Vazquez's bat is even average, I don't see him as a backup catcher, but they also aren't going to keep Swihart's bat on the bench.
 
I feel like the asking price for Strasburg will be astronomically high, that is why I am looking at Zimmermann.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,100
Wesport, MA
Pedro 4 99MVP said:
Yes I realize that it is only 1 year of Zimmermann. I also realize that the cost of starting pitching both in FA and in trades is high. I also realize that not all prospects pan out, and that not all of our top prospects will be on the Red Sox, even if they do end up being good. There isn't room for all of them. Would I hate to give up Swihart or Owens? Yes, but I don't think 1 of them plus a couple of lesser parts that we will probably never use is too much to give up to get 1 of the best SP in the game during his prime, even if it is for only 1 year. Maybe he signs an extension...bonus. 
 
That's the kind of move a desperate team trying to shore up a playoff rotation might make in the summer. Not now. Swihart and Owners are both probably top 25 prospects in all of baseball. You don't move either unless an extension is guaranteed. 
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,111
Florida
After seeing Washington seemingly come out of nowhere to be the big player on Max at 7/$210m, i'm now having a hard time concluding Shields won't get his 2 less years and half those total dollars at 5/$100m.
 
Of all the potential do something moves on the table, Hamels-for-Swihart (if possible) is still the best and most sensible overall bet imo. Strasburg will simply cost too many resources, and while the deadline deal for an upcoming FA concept has some appeal to it...it still likely plays out to be a band-aid fix. The notion we are going to trade for a guy like Zimmerman and then extend him for anything below what Max just got is wishful thinking at it's best. Same goes for the possibility we find a free agent ace "at our price" next winter. Hamels at least offers an out on that, even if it comes with it's own and arguably lesser evil cost.
 
The above said, at this point i voted the wait and reassess option. But i did so with the full understanding that the Cole Hamels option might not be there latter, and with a more open mind then many here on the possibility we pony up the monster 7 year FA contract in the event we find ourselves boxed into a corner. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the decision to acquire a starter now as opposed to at mid-season could be a 3 or 4 game swing in the standings at that point, if what you'd be replacing is something on the order of Masterson's 2014.

It seems to me, the difference in strategy at mid-season if you're 1 game out of first place and leading the wild card by a game is potentially quite different from the strategy if you're 5 games out of first and tied with 3 other teams 2 games behind the second wild card.

By all probabilistic aging curve models, the best season the Red Sox are going to get from Uehara, Ortiz, Pedroia, Sandoval, and Ramirez is 2015. No one knows what lurks behind Napoli's expiring contract for 2016. Do you want to give up 4 games over the first half of 2015?

Of course, if they manage their payroll properly and luck out a little bit as they watch all the kids blossom into regulars, perhaps next offseason can see the money for Mujica, Napoli, Victorino, Porcello/Buchholz, and Masterson (about $55 million if I'm counting correctly) repurposed into both Cueto and Zimmerman (Porcello/Buchholz, Miley, Kelly/Owens rounding out the rotation) for a massive final run of the Ortiz era in 2016.

I am torn.
 

NoLastCall125

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2009
897
Providence, RI
I voted wait and see.
 
This rotation makes me nervous. To me, there are four question marks - Miley transitioning to the AL, Kelly's development and Masterson/Buchholz returning to form. I'd much rather they roll the dice to see what pans out before finding out what holes to fill with which prospects being used as assets. This rotation could be very volatile and if it's for the worse, then having an ace wouldn't have helped and they've saved resources to restock for 2016. Just wait and see the holes first before trying to upgrade.
 
Plus, there are too many good pitchers out there for 2016 as free agents. Even if Shields comes cheaper than the rest, I'd much rather they save the money and splurge on a number 1 still in his prime than a guy who can't be counted on in the playoffs.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,100
Wesport, MA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Two words: Grady Sizemore.
 
Well to be fair he was supposed to be the 4th or 5th OF on the roster. JBJ/Gomes/Vic/Nava/Sizemore.
 
Slow starts from Nava, injuries to Vic, and all-world offensive suck from JBJ overexposed him.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,870
Maine
foulkehampshire said:
 
Well to be fair he was supposed to be the 4th or 5th OF on the roster. JBJ/Gomes/Vic/Nava/Sizemore.
 
Slow starts from Nava, injuries to Vic, and all-world offensive suck from JBJ overexposed him.
 
Perhaps John Smoltz would be a better example?
 
Signing Beechy knowing he won't be healthy and ready until June or so is one thing if the minor league pitching depth isn't so deep, as was the case in 2009 with Smoltz.  But that really isn't an issue for the 2015 Red Sox.
 
When Smoltz was ready to go, they had no choice but to promote him (releasing him after committing $5.5M to him would have been a waste).  After promoting him, they shoehorned him into a six-man rotation until Wakefield was DLed, he pitched like ass, and all the while Clay Buchholz toiled in Pawtucket having a pretty good season (2.36 ERA, 0.98 WHIP in 99 innings).
 
Obviously, they're not going to pay Beachy $5.5M or anything close.  Maybe they can get him to sign a minor league deal. but I doubt it.  Either way once he's healthy, there will be a point where they'll have to bring him up or let him go.  If there's a need for him due to injury or under-performance, great!  But will he provide the Sox something at that point they couldn't get from Ranaudo or Barnes or Owens or Rodriguez or Johnson (or Wright or Workman or Escobar)?  And if the rotation as it stands now is humming along just fine, what do they do then?
 
Seems overly complicated and unnecessary given the state of the roster now.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
Shields owns a lifetime 2-9 record, with an absurd 5.42 era in 13 starts at Fenway.

Hamels is 8-13 (.381) with a 4.54 era against the AL.

Even for "just cash" can't say I'd believe this is the front line pitcher we're looking for.

Zimmerman and Strasburg - let's talk.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,100
Wesport, MA
maxotaur said:
Shields owns a lifetime 2-9 record, with an absurd 5.42 era in 13 starts at Fenway.
 
That holds zero relevance, because he wouldn't be facing the Red Sox at Fenway. Unless you think that the park dimensions are such that he'd never succeed. More evidence to the contrary (RHP, big RF/CF at Fenway, neutral GB/FB splits) if anything. 
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
foulkehampshire said:
 
That holds zero relevance, because he wouldn't be facing the Red Sox at Fenway. Unless you think that the park dimensions are such that he'd never succeed. More evidence to the contrary (RHP, big RF/CF at Fenway, neutral GB/FB splits) if anything. 
And by that logic his 3-6 record (5.46 era) in the playoffs has zero relevance too, because he was playing good teams so that should be disregarded.

Right.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
maxotaur said:
And by that logic his 3-6 record (5.46 era) in the playoffs has zero relevance too, because he was playing good teams so that should be disregarded.

Right.
 
Of course it should be disregarded, not because he was playing good teams, but because won loss record is a stupid thing to look at, and it comprises a total of 59.1 innings over eleven starts. That's basically a third of a season.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,100
Wesport, MA
maxotaur said:
And by that logic his 3-6 record (5.46 era) in the playoffs has zero relevance too, because he was playing good teams so that should be disregarded.

Right.
 
The playoff performance is relevant. His record against the Sox at Fenway as a deterrent is not. Should they sign Frank Catalanotto's of the world because they hit Red Sox well? Pretty much the same argument.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
foulkehampshire said:
 
The playoff performance is relevant. His record against the Sox at Fenway as a deterrent is not. Should they sign Frank Catalanotto's of the world because they hit Red Sox well? Pretty much the same argument.
I'm not near a computer but if you or someone else can come up with his record vs the Sox outside of Fenway that might shine some further light on the subject.

Thanks.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
Rasputin said:
 
Of course it should be disregarded, not because he was playing good teams, but because won loss record is a stupid thing to look at, and it comprises a total of 59.1 innings over eleven starts. That's basically a third of a season.
Ok. W-L can be misleading, but a 5 and 1/2 era? If your argument is SSS of playoffs rendering them irrelevant, then we probably shouldn't talk about "big game" pitchers ever again. Certainly a waste of time to speak of, say, Lester's or Schilling's post-season stats.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
maxotaur said:
I'm not near a computer but if you or someone else can come up with his record vs the Sox outside of Fenway that might shine some further light on the subject.

Thanks.
 
No, it wouldn't. The reason it's irrelevant is the sample is too small to matter.
 
maxotaur said:
Ok. W-L can be misleading, but a 5 and 1/2 era? If your argument is SSS of playoffs rendering them irrelevant, then we probably shouldn't talk about "big game" pitchers ever again. Certainly a waste of time to speak of, say, Lester's or Schilling's post-season stats.
 
Small sample size. Key word, "small." Schilling has more than twice the post season innings of Shields and he was a better overall pitcher in the first place. Likewise, Lester is a better overall pitcher, but his playoff sample is still too small to be terribly relevant either. Lester is actually a great example of why post season stats don't really tell us much about someone's ability to perform in "games that matter." Look at his 2007 and 2014 and he looks like someone who can't handle the environment. Look solely at his 2013 and he looks like a post season stud that is worth paying that premium for. The reality is that he's just a really good pitcher who had one great run through the playoffs and has had some bad games around it.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
jasvlm said:
The assets like Swihart, Owens, Betts, etc. are the most valuable properties the Sox have.  While it is almost certainly true that those guys won't produce as much in terms of win added value as Hamels will in 2015, they will be productive at a fraction of their win cost over the next 6 plus seasons, whereas Hamels, making 22 mil a season, will have to pitch like a 3.2 win player to be worth more than his contract (assuming 7 mil per win), and return positive value on the investment the Sox have in him.  Betts, should he live up to projections, might be a 3 win player making 500k this season.  It is those kinds of assets (Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Swihart, etc) that will allow the Sox to take on salary in deals, to sign bigger ticket free agents, and to avoid having to be in a talent negative situation where they have to rob the farm system to put a competitive team on the field.
I have no problem putting a package together that nets Hamels, but it is a package that would not include any of the names listed here.  At best, Hamels should cost one good prospect (Margot?) and 1-2 other guys in the Sox 15-30 range of prospects, at most.  Anything more than that is an overpay, which is why Hamels isn't in Boston already.
 
I agree with this although, after this winter, the Sox almost certainly will not surrender their first round draft pick either even for Zimmerman, Cueto or Price.  Extending Porcello seems more likely.  Better to hope that one from among Owens, Rodriguez and Johnson fulfills their potential.  IMO such valuable assets should only be swapped for equally valuable assets in the closest thing to an old fashioned baseball trade as might still exist.  A Sox surplus bluechip prospect for an equally valuable Mets pitching prospect (for example) makes more sense.  Going forward, the Sox will invest their money in buying out the prime years of production in whoever from among Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, Porcello, the 3 lefty amigos, Barnes, Cecchini or whoever emerges as bona fide major league players.  Not every one of these prospects will succeed but it doesn't waste millions of real dollars (monopoly money to fans) paying for little or no major league production from declining past their primes free agents signed for too long.  Hamels is a prime target for the Sox and others because his contract, though expensive, is not too lengthy.  Better to be outbid by another team trading for his services than to give up a too valuable cost controlled asset who doesn't waste significant money even in failure.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
maxotaur said:
Ok. W-L can be misleading, but a 5 and 1/2 era? If your argument is SSS of playoffs rendering them irrelevant, then we probably shouldn't talk about "big game" pitchers ever again. Certainly a waste of time to speak of, say, Lester's or Schilling's post-season stats.
 
In terms of projecting future performance, of course it's a waste of time. Clayton Kershaw has a career ERA of 5.12 and there isn't a single team that wouldn't love to have him starting a post season series for them. For discussions of what a player has done, like a Hall of Fame discussion, it's different.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I should follow my post up to clarify because it could be construed as an argument that Schilling's post season record is usable as evidence that he could ramp it up in the playoffs and be a better pitcher there. That's not what I was getting at. I was simply pointing out that his sample size is much larger than what we have for Shields and shouldn't be lumped in with it just because it also happened in the playoffs. The problem with Schiling's post season record is that by the time he had accrued enough innings for it to be relevant, he was also at a point in his career where age related decline was also a major relevant factor in trying to predict what he'd be able to do in those games.
 
And here's the thing... for most players, when their post season samples get large enough, their post season numbers tend to end up looking a lot like their regular season numbers. There are a few exceptions, but the idea that James Shields can't hack it in the playoffs is quite simply unsupportable because of a lack of data.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I should follow my post up to clarify because it could be construed as an argument that Schilling's post season record is usable as evidence that he could ramp it up in the playoffs and be a better pitcher there. That's not what I was getting at. I was simply pointing out that his sample size is much larger than what we have for Shields and shouldn't be lumped in with it just because it also happened in the playoffs. The problem with Schiling's post season record is that by the time he had accrued enough innings for it to be relevant, he was also at a point in his career where age related decline was also a major relevant factor in trying to predict what he'd be able to do in those games.
 
And here's the thing... for most players, when their post season samples get large enough, their post season numbers tend to end up looking a lot like their regular season numbers. There are a few exceptions, but the idea that James Shields can't hack it in the playoffs is quite simply unsupportable because of a lack of data.
 
Case in point, Derek Jeter. 158 post season games, 734 plate appearances, basically one whole season's worth. .308/.374/.465/.838 in the post season and .310/.377.440/.817 on average in the regular season.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
Look, we all get the idea of sss. But to completely dismiss his career performance at Fenway, his post-season starts, and his 30 or so life time starts against the Sox as a total non-factor in the decision making process is preposterous.

To think this has no part in the FO's impression of Shields would be myopic and naive. IMHO.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
maxotaur said:
Look, we all get the idea of sss. But to completely dismiss his career performance at Fenway, his post-season starts, and his 30 or so life time starts against the Sox as a total non-factor in the decision making process is preposterous.

To think this has no part in the FO's impression of Shields would be myopic and naive. IMHO.
 
No, you don't.
 
If you don't have enough data from which to draw a conclusion, you don't draw conclusions from it. It's really kinda that simple.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
Rasputin said:
 
No, you don't.
 
If you don't have enough data from which to draw a conclusion, you don't draw conclusions from it. It's really kinda that simple.
Don't be ridiculous. Decisions in baseball are made everyday in baseball based upon information that doesn't include an entire career, or anywhere close to it. It would be impossible without it. It really is kinda that simple.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
maxotaur said:
Don't be ridiculous. Decisions in baseball are made everyday in baseball based upon information that doesn't include an entire career. It would be impossible without it. It really is kinda that simple.
 
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.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
maxotaur said:
Don't be ridiculous. Decisions in baseball are made everyday in baseball based upon information that doesn't include an entire career, or anywhere close to it. It would be impossible without it. It really is kinda that simple.
 
I would suggest that in many cases, those decisions are based not on past results, but on scouting reports. Joe Hitter doesn't start gaainst Jack Pitcher because he's 4 for 8, but because his strengths play into the pitcher's tendencies.
 
I would also direct your attention to the regularity with which those decisions are decried as being stupid.
 
It happens all the time.
 
Because they're stupid.
 

maxotaur

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
429
Pittsburgh PA
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
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.
Agreed. But I'm sure it often comes into play in signings also. If Shields were 9-2 at Fenway instead of 2-9, I'm imagining that is not completely ignored in the minds of the FO. It's human nature. Besides, you know that a sss by no means implies data is false, or improbable for that matter. Just not proven with certainty.

My argument is just that. Nothing more. At that I'm stepping away.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,494
Not here
maxotaur said:
Agreed. But I'm sure it often comes into play in signings also. If Shields were 9-2 at Fenway instead of 2-9, I'm imagining that is not completely ignored in the minds of the FO. It's human nature. Besides, you know that a sss by no means implies data is false, or improbable for that matter. Just not proven with certainty.

My argument is just that. Nothing more. At that I'm stepping away.
 
The definition of SSS is that it's too damn small to draw conclusions from.
 
How a player does with other teams at Fenway is utterly irrelevant. If the Red Sox sign him, he's not facing the Red Sox at Fenway Park.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
More confirmation about why 7 year contracts, even for Lester, are a bad idea:
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/jayson-stark/post/_/id/1056/seven-year-deals-for-pitchers-big-trouble
 
Porcello, even if not an ace is less of a risk because of his age just before his prime.  I won't be surprised to see him extended before the regular season begins if he looks good in spring training.  Longer pitching contracts make sense only over a hurler's prime years of production.  Cherington needs to adhere to his convictions. It's better to grow your own and trade for arbitration eligible pitchers who are getting too expensive for their teams.  The Yankees acquisition of Eovaldi could turn out to be one of their best moves in years.
 
I voted for a trade deadline move, if needed, but will prefer a move along these lines.  I will be even more happy if Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson or a combination of them can provide a boost, if needed, down the stretch.