Oh for sure. I totally forgot him for some reason. He's absolutely on the cutting board, probably ahead of Santana. My fault.I know we've got a soft spot for Brandon Workman due to his contributions to two championships, but he would not be a big loss if they needed the roster spot.
You don’t say.Wheels are coming off of the starting pitching.
Well it was obvious that Pivetta, Richards were significantly over performing.... but not as bad as they've looked recently.You don’t say.
There is an interesting pitching prospect named Bradley Blalock, who for whatever reason my brain swaps with Brandon Brennan each and every time I see Brennan's name.
I'd actually argue the 40 man management has been an area of strength for the organization since Bloom took over. The dreck that filled the last 5 spots of the roster during the end of the Dombrowski years hurt the big league club. Further, there were a ton of examples of Boston DFA'ing a player after putting them on the 40 man in order to cover a double header, or when the pen was spent.
Right now there are maybe only two 40 man spots that I wouldn't lose any sleep over losing (Weber and Santana). There are also two players on the 60 day IL (Sale and Braiser).
I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but Boston would be well served to start making some trades. They're dealing with a roster crunch. I don't think Rosario, Potts and Wilson are ready to contribute right now, but each of them could be useful role players one day. It would be a shame to DFA any of them, I'm sure they'd get claimed. Right now after Weber and Santana, that grouping looks most likely to get cut from the 40 man roster.
Billy Ashley's point is a reason that I think we're going to be active at the deadline, even if we may not be buyers or sellers in the conventional sense.Oh for sure. I totally forgot him for some reason. He's absolutely on the cutting board, probably ahead of Santana. My fault.
The overall point remains that we're in for a 40 man crunch. If Brasier is healthy (I have no idea how he's doing after the line drive off the head last week) enough to resume rehab, it's possible that someone will be getting cut before the end of July. If Sale is able to return, that'll be another spot.
I'd probably rank the likely cuts as:
Weber
Workman
Santana
The off season will be really tricky, with a bunch of prospects being rule V eligible.
What it would cost might vary based on how much salary subsidization the Nationals are willing to give. His full season luxury tax number is roughly $28.6M, so pro-rated for ~2 months it is about $9M. If the Sox take that all on, it should not cost them a top 10 prospect.What would it realistically cost to trade for Scherzer (assuming he is healthy)? Remember he is a UFA and turns 37 at the trade deadline. So you're getting him for 2 months + possibly the postseason?
I'm not ready to declare the Sox should either be buyer or sellers yet, but if they're still sitting in one of the WC spots in late July, and think Sale is coming back, going for it with Scherzer and this offense / bullpen could be appealing, at the right price.
A few things:Billy Ashley's point is a reason that I think we're going to be active at the deadline, even if we may not be buyers or sellers in the conventional sense.
(Maybe the pitching stabilizes, and we're in the hunt and buying; maybe it doesn't, and we aren't.)
But this winter, we're going to need to roster some/most of:
Downs
Duran
Jimenez
Ward
Bello
Winckowski
Feltman
German
Most of these players we actually want going forward. Maybe you could sneak Feltman through unprotected, but everybody else would be likely to get claimed. And as BA pointed out, we have a couple players on the 60-day IL, so we need more slots than it looks like we do.
We're in an awkward situation right now, where a ton of our 40-man or close to 40-man pitching depth is actually promising, but due to injury or inexperience or both, not actually viable as immediate depth. I don't see Groome getting a spot-start this month; Mata is on the IL; Seabold and Houck are recuperating.
So we should probably put together a 40-man roster thread to zoom in on where else on the roster there's likely to be a pinch. Weber, Chavis, Santana, and Workman are players with major league experience whose time on the roster might be nearing its end. Two of those guys (also Ottavino and Gonzalez) have deals that are up at the end of the season, which should help with the roster even if we intend to retain them. Long story short, it looks to me like some of Potts, Rosario, and Wilson — and perhaps also Groome, sadly — might need to be dealt, likely for younger prospects. Cordero and Arroyo are other trade possibilities.
Well, I mean, two months of Mitch Moreland, minus whatever value you assign to a year of pre-Rule V eligibility, right? What is 75% of 2020 Mitch Moreland? CJ Cron?What would Potts and Rosario catch in a trade?
Spitballing here, but I could see a package like Dalbec, one of Potts/Arroyo/Chavis, and one of Groome/Ward/Bello or two of Politi/German/Feltman. The Nats have the worst system in baseball and even though Scherzer is a $10M rental, I could see them wanting quantity if they’re not going to get a slam-dunk prospect. It’s maybe even a bit of an overpay, but I suspect the Jays will be involved (even though it’s Max’s choice). Maybe they’d also throw in Harrison or a subsidized Castro to balance it out.What would it realistically cost to trade for Scherzer (assuming he is healthy)? Remember he is a UFA and turns 37 at the trade deadline. So you're getting him for 2 months + possibly the postseason?
I'm not ready to declare the Sox should either be buyer or sellers yet, but if they're still sitting in one of the WC spots in late July, and think Sale is coming back, going for it with Scherzer and this offense / bullpen could be appealing,
Well, that fully explains why Weber was DFA'd.
Huh. That's a weird one. He was good in AAA for the Rays, who sold him to Seattle ten days ago on June 4.
Pretty much. I'd be really be surprised if he lasts more than 3 major league appearances. I'm not sure they would have made this trade a week ago since the emergency option (Weber) had not already been used.Looks like Yacksel's role is to be a pitcher on the 40-man, but not on the 25-man, who is actually ready to pitch on short notice, unlike Mata, Ward, Groome, Houck, and Seabold.
It's sort of an odd choice though. He was never a dedicated starter in the minors and his mixed seasons were long ago. He was used as a AAA one inning late-inning reliever by the Rays this year. Lotsa strikeouts, few walks.Looks like Yacksel's role is to be a pitcher on the 40-man, but not on the 25-man, who is actually ready to pitch on short notice, unlike Mata, Ward, Groome, Houck, and Seabold.
Seems to me like he's stays in WOOster and they see if they can develop him into a useful piece. I mean they must see some possibility there.It's sort of an odd choice though. He was never a dedicated starter in the minors and his mixed seasons were long ago. He was used as a AAA one inning late-inning reliever by the Rays this year. Lotsa strikeouts, few walks.
(The Rays seem to have a ton of guys like that in AAA including old friend Chris Mazza - https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/team.cgi?id=69f1679f )
So unless they're planning on stretching him out, he's likely a 30 pitch guy. Which isn't a great stopgap guy to promote.
So maybe they think he has a chance to be a legit MLB piece?
There is at least a chance he's done. His health issues were significant. Much of the anti-mask etc, hype has focused on surviving. The doctors I know say many people young and old will have long term, maybe even permanent effects. I will add that I hope Mack Jones is ready.Rodriguez has just been terrible.... but I'm still confident in him figuring something out.
Seems to me like he's stays in WOOster and they see if they can develop him into a useful piece. I mean they must see some possibility there.
Bloom has to know him well from TB days so very possible.Seems to me like he's stays in WOOster and they see if they can develop him into a useful piece. I mean they must see some possibility there.
His April starts were good enough, and he used a new approach:There is at least a chance he's done. His health issues were significant. Much of the anti-mask etc, hype has focused on surviving. The doctors I know say many people young and old will have long term, maybe even permanent effects. I will add that I hope Mack Jones is ready.
I hope I am wrong and you are right. But, we know velocity is not much of an indicator of injury etc. He may not be able to keep up the pace etc.His April starts were good enough, and he used a new approach:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/eduardo-rodriguez-is-back-and-more-dominant-than-ever/
His velocity hasn't drastically changed since then.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/eduardo-rodriguez/13164/graphs?pitchgraphs=true&statArr=&legend=1&split=base&time=daily&start=2018&end=2021&rtype=mult>1=15&dStatArray=FA&ymin=&ymax=
So, unless there's been some reporting on his health(?), his recent problems seems more likely to be related to teams adjusting to his new pitch mix or the like.
Arroyo is having an outlier of a year. It happens. The .773 OPS is what’s really staggering.Yeah, there is almost no reason to be optimistic about Arroyo. Just about everything in his profile suggests he's been a terrible hitter this season. He's been worse in almost way than last year, but somehow has at the same time had results 18% better than league average.
He's been a great plug in find from Bloom, but at some point he's going to revert back to being an 80 WRC+ guy. The team talks a lot about how much they value his defense and that could very well be true, but he shouldn't be starting for a playoff bound team.
The best thing that could happen for this team would be for one of Duran or Cordero to stick in the OF so that they can move Hernandez to 2B and slide Arroyo to the bench.
I forgot how 2013 ended….. can someone remind me?The Red Sox win a second straight 10-8 game. They're the only team in baseball this year to win back-to-back games in which they allowed 8+ runs. The last Red Sox team to pull the feat was the 2013 Red Sox, who did it 3 straight times vs the Yankees (9/5-9/7/2013).
Looking at the #’s, it’s what you would expect to see. 5 of the regulars are around or slightly below league average in walk % (JD, Xander, Renfroe, Devers and Verdugo).Well it certainly appears the offense is good, and we have some real hitters in the middle of our lineup, I was shocked to look up and notice that, currently, the Red Sox are dead last in the major leagues in drawing walks! How did we get here? I can’t remember the last time we weren’t lauded as one of the more patient hitting teams.
I’m really surprised by this. Typically teams that, as Theo Epstein put it, control the strike zone, are the ones who succeed. I hope this is something that they can improve upon, because given the hitting power they possess, if they do better being selective and getting on base, that should only improve things overall. I guess it reflects Cora’s coaching around being aggressive. I wonder if this will end up being a problem at some point.
Yeah, I really don't know one way or the other; just considering factors. If it was only the Astros that had his number I'd be more confident. But I think the recent results say we're at the point we concerns are warranted.I hope I am wrong and you are right. But, we know velocity is not much of an indicator of injury etc. He may not be able to keep up the pace etc.
Overhyped first year manager cemented in pace; he sucks for two years then stumbles into the playoffs three years later.View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1405368400323432450
I forgot how 2013 ended….. can someone remind me?
/s
Related to the bold, there's also a possibility that he was/is trying to get ahead of the curve (so to speak) on the new sticky-stuff rules.His April starts were good enough, and he used a new approach:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/eduardo-rodriguez-is-back-and-more-dominant-than-ever/
His velocity hasn't drastically changed since then.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/eduardo-rodriguez/13164/graphs?pitchgraphs=true&statArr=&legend=1&split=base&time=daily&start=2018&end=2021&rtype=mult>1=15&dStatArray=FA&ymin=&ymax=
So, unless there's been some reporting on his health(?), his recent problems seems more likely to be related to teams adjusting to his new pitch mix or the like.
It's a problem now. Cora has admitted Red Sox hitters have the green light all the time in all situations. These seems silly to me. He does preach that Sox hitters lay off bad pitches, though I wish the organization (and Cora) returned a bit to driving up pitch counts and talking walks approach. Or, splitting the difference between the patience approach of the 2000s and the jumping on good pitches early in the count aggressive approach of today. That is, to practice a situational approach that requires aggression or patience respectively and depending on context.Well it certainly appears the offense is good, and we have some real hitters in the middle of our lineup, I was shocked to look up and notice that, currently, the Red Sox are dead last in the major leagues in drawing walks! How did we get here? I can’t remember the last time we weren’t lauded as one of the more patient hitting teams.
I’m really surprised by this. Typically teams that, as Theo Epstein put it, control the strike zone, are the ones who succeed. I hope this is something that they can improve upon, because given the hitting power they possess, if they do better being selective and getting on base, that should only improve things overall. I guess it reflects Cora’s coaching around being aggressive. I wonder if this will end up being a problem at some point.
Sox are 2nd in the AL in runs. Given the changes being made to the game in real time, it's hard for me to say that their current approach wont be just as successful for the rest of the year. Most of us have "grown up" with some variation of the get the high pitch count-get into the bullpen-take lots of pitches-strikeouts re OK, etc. being the most successful. But much in the same way that the "we should sacrifice and steal at a 60% success rate" approach became extinct (or at least acknowledged to be sub-optimal) I think we (or at least I) will have to adjust our thinking on what offensive approach leads to success.Pitch count is irrelevant in the days of 14 man pitching staffs. No starter ever gets to go three times through a lineup regardless of the pitch count. And with strikeouts at an all time high, it seems like the Red Sox have decided they don't want their guys hitting with 2 strikes at all if they can help it. You need three hacks just to make contact these days, so being Wade Boggs and always letting the first pitch go only puts you in a hole.
You can obviously go too far with this. Nobody should be swinging at bad pitches no matter what the count is. But I don't have a problem with being aggressive when you see a hittable ball in the zone. You might not get another one.
Agreed. I was wholly on board the OBP, work counts train, but times change. In 2003, running up pitch counts meant getting into a team's bullpen earlier and feasting on their weaker middle relievers. In 2021, running up pitch counts and chasing starters means facing a series of pitchers throwing 99 mph and striking guys out at an extraordinary rate. There are 110 relievers in MLB right now sporting a K/9 of 9 or greater. That's an average of nearly four per team. In 2003, there was a total of 27 such relievers, so less than one per team. Get your licks in where you can.Sox are 2nd in the AL in runs. Given the changes being made to the game in real time, it's hard for me to say that their current approach wont be just as successful for the rest of the year. Most of us have "grown up" with some variation of the get the high pitch count-get into the bullpen-take lots of pitches-strikeouts re OK, etc. being the most successful. But much in the same way that the "we should sacrifice and steal at a 60% success rate" approach became extinct (or at least acknowledged to be sub-optimal) I think we (or at least I) will have to adjust our thinking on what offensive approach leads to success.
There are a number of ways to go about this. The Rays, who are neck and neck with the Red Sox as far as runs go, are tops in the AL in walks, have the same OBP as the Sox, but hit 25 and slug 40 points lower.Sox are 2nd in the AL in runs. Given the changes being made to the game in real time, it's hard for me to say that their current approach wont be just as successful for the rest of the year. Most of us have "grown up" with some variation of the get the high pitch count-get into the bullpen-take lots of pitches-strikeouts re OK, etc. being the most successful. But much in the same way that the "we should sacrifice and steal at a 60% success rate" approach became extinct (or at least acknowledged to be sub-optimal) I think we (or at least I) will have to adjust our thinking on what offensive approach leads to success.
I also agree with the idea of selective aggression, but last in walks seems too much. Even if you’re right that pitch counts don’t matter as much anymore, it still makes sense to me that you would want to get into the other teams bullpen sooner than later. When you watch Kevin Cash manage, he pulls his starter before the third time through the order, even if he’s been dominant. All the better to do that to your opponent in the 3rd than the 6th inning, and force the other team to use another pitcher or two to finish the game. I also think it’s good to have your hitters exposed to as many of the other teams pitchers as much as possible, to gain familiarity.Pitch count is irrelevant in the days of 14 man pitching staffs. No starter ever gets to go three times through a lineup regardless of the pitch count. And with strikeouts at an all time high, it seems like the Red Sox have decided they don't want their guys hitting with 2 strikes at all if they can help it. You need three hacks just to make contact these days, so being Wade Boggs and always letting the first pitch go only puts you in a hole.
You can obviously go too far with this. Nobody should be swinging at bad pitches no matter what the count is. But I don't have a problem with being aggressive when you see a hittable ball in the zone. You might not get another one.
Yes, the operative phrase there is selective aggression. A dogmatic approach in either direction seems unwise. What does the situation merit? Is the opposing pitcher struggling to find the strike zone (then don't do him any favors, and maybe take the first pitch)? Are the bases loaded? What is the particular hitter-pitcher match up? How deep is the opposing bullpen? How many innings did the bullpen pitch the game before (so, are they tired, and potentially less effective if they come into the game today)? etc. etc.I also agree with the idea of selective aggression, but last in walks seems too much. Even if you’re right that pitch counts don’t matter as much anymore, it still makes sense to me that you would want to get into the other teams bullpen sooner than later. When you watch Kevin Cash manage, he pulls his starter before the third time through the order, even if he’s been dominant. All the better to do that to your opponent in the 3rd than the 6th inning, and force the other team to use another pitcher or two to finish the game. I also think it’s good to have your hitters exposed to as many of the other teams pitchers as much as possible, to gain familiarity.
Plus, the hitter still wants to try to work the count to get the best pitches to hit. And if the other team doesn’t want to give him good pitches, he should be willing to take the base and increase his teams chances of scoring.
I suspect that teams with low payroll have to perpetually revamp their philosophy and approach depending on who their personnel actually is since they're more likely to be dependent on drafts and/or finding hidden values in scrap-heap players.Yes, the operative phrase there is selective aggression. A dogmatic approach in either direction seems unwise. What does the situation merit? Is the opposing pitcher struggling to find the strike zone (then don't do him any favors, and maybe take the first pitch)? Are the bases loaded? What is the particular hitter-pitcher match up? How deep is the opposing bullpen? How many innings did the bullpen pitch the game before (so, are they tired, and potentially less effective if they come into the game today)? etc. etc.
Another reason to drive up pitch count, is that with more pitches come more mistake pitches, and the potential of tiring a pitcher within an inning (leading to more mistakes). But yes, sometimes pouncing quickly on a meaty pitch early in the count is also effective. Again, I think everyone here agrees that the game has changed since the 2000s, and that taking a blanket patience approach is dated. But being flexible, specific, and situational in approach seems strategically smart. I don't think it should be an either/or proposition.
Meanwhile, what are likely the three best teams in baseball - White Sox, Dodgers and Astros, and 1, 2, and 3 in OBP. And top five in BB are all on the inside track to post season baseball (LAD, TB, SD, SF, CWS).
This seems like a bit of an oversimplification though because obviously you're leaving out all other stats in this comparison. The Sox are second in the AL in runs, and that's with some notable black holes. Trying to change the approach ("hey guys, take more pitches and walk more") will likely have additional effects on the offense. It's like taking a high strikeout slugger and saying "boy, if he just struck out less and put the ball in play more, think about how much better he would be!" Its very difficult to change one thing in isolation with a player. For similar reasons it would probably have been counterproductive for Ortiz to change his swing so he could slap pitches down the third base line when the shift was on.Yes, the operative phrase there is selective aggression. A dogmatic approach in either direction seems unwise. What does the situation merit? Is the opposing pitcher struggling to find the strike zone (then don't do him any favors, and maybe take the first pitch)? Are the bases loaded? What is the particular hitter-pitcher match up? How deep is the opposing bullpen? How many innings did the bullpen pitch the game before (so, are they tired, and potentially less effective if they come into the game today)? etc. etc.
Another reason to drive up pitch count, is that with more pitches come more mistake pitches, and the potential of tiring a pitcher within an inning (leading to more mistakes). But yes, sometimes pouncing quickly on a meaty pitch early in the count is also effective. Again, I think everyone here agrees that the game has changed since the 2000s, and that taking a blanket patience approach is dated. But being flexible, specific, and situational in approach seems strategically smart. I don't think it should be an either/or proposition.
Meanwhile, what are likely the three best teams in baseball - White Sox, Dodgers and Astros, and 1, 2, and 3 in OBP. And top five in BB are all on the inside track to post season baseball (LAD, TB, SD, SF, CWS).
Yes, I see what you mean. Though Cora has preached an aggressive approach, which I think is reflected in team's K and BB rates. My two cents is not to take more pitches necessarily or universally, but to have a flexible/adaptable approach, rather than an ideologically rigid one ....This seems like a bit of an oversimplification though because obviously you're leaving out all other stats in this comparison. The Sox are second in the AL in runs, and that's with some notable black holes. Trying to change the approach ("hey guys, take more pitches and walk more") will likely have additional effects on the offense. It's like taking a high strikeout slugger and saying "boy, if he just struck out less and put the ball in play more, think about how much better he would be!" Its very difficult to change one thing in isolation with a player. For similar reasons it would probably have been counterproductive for Ortiz to change his swing so he could slap pitches down the third base line when the shift was on.
Totally.Should there be multiple approaches here with different players? The list posted upthread (along with batting averages) gives a clear picture as to which players should be taking a more on base friendly approach. I've never played the game at a high level, but aren't most of the guys in the bottom half of that list helping opposing pitcher with there aggressiveness? Wouldn't some of these guy's benefit the team more by being more than a quick and easy out?