Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[User Name]

I don't think some people quite understand the logic behind the way the Red Sox constructed the current rotation, even though it's actually quite simple. They went younger and more projectable while giving themselves the opportunity to add to the rotation at their price and their time. There's something to be said about upside and flexibility. I am firmly on the "they need an ace" camp, but that doesn't preclude me from looking at the bigger picture. The "do it now" mentality is not conductive to good business, and even more so in the current economic environment baseball is experiencing.

[sk7326]

When we face true #1 and Solid #2 we are going to struggle to match those games. Yeah, the upside is there but the ?s and injury prone issues probably are bigger, in the way I see the thing.

 

I agree there has to be some projection. But the calculated bet is that between beating up on bad pitchers and hanging against the rest, there are 85 wins at least. The issue you bring up I think is much more significant in October. This goes to one of the quirks of baseball - the club that can succeed in a marathon and the club that can win the tournament require much different qualities.

[iortiz]

I agree there has to be some projection. But the calculated bet is that between beating up on bad pitchers and hanging against the rest, there are 85 wins at least. The issue you bring up I think is much more significant in October. This goes to one of the quirks of baseball - the club that can succeed in a marathon and the club that can win the tournament require much different qualities.

 

I think I saw at ESPNBoston.com 88 W. I perfectly understand your point, but based on 2011, 2012 and 2014 when we didn't make the POs with better pitching staffs on paper entering into a new season, this is the worst rotation I ever seen at least in the last 10 Y, but again that's me.

[iortiz]

I don't think some people quite understand the logic behind the way the Red Sox constructed the current rotation, even though it's actually quite simple. They went younger and more projectable while giving themselves the opportunity to add to the rotation at their price and their time. There's something to be said about upside and flexibility. I am firmly on the "they need an ace" camp, but that doesn't preclude me from looking at the bigger picture. The "do it now" mentality is not conductive to good business, and even more so in the current economic environment baseball is experiencing.

 

I do not like at all that logic/strategy. While they are putting all their chips on Offense, the pitching looks like very fragile.

[Spudboy]

I don't think some people quite understand the logic behind the way the Red Sox constructed the current rotation, even though it's actually quite simple. They went younger and more projectable while giving themselves the opportunity to add to the rotation at their price and their time. There's something to be said about upside and flexibility. I am firmly on the "they need an ace" camp, but that doesn't preclude me from looking at the bigger picture. The "do it now" mentality is not conductive to good business, and even more so in the current economic environment baseball is experiencing.

 

This is a far more articulate version of what I tried to say a while ago.

[Bellhorn04]

Honestly, I don't see them making something remotely close to 20 M/Y when they hit the FA (these days money value; Net Future Value)

 

I'm just asking for 2 solid/proven arms followed by 3/4 tier pitchers and a couple of prospects in your depth side. Is it too much to ask for a team which has one of the highest payrolls in baseball? Haha

 

I meant 20 M/Y total for the 3 of them.

[iortiz]

I meant 20 M/Y total for the 3 of them.

 

ohhh I see, my bad Bell but I do not know if I feel better or worse LOL!

[User Name]

I think I saw at ESPNBoston.com 88 W. I perfectly understand your point, but based on 2011, 2012 and 2014 when we didn't make the POs with better pitching staffs on paper entering into a new season, this is the worst rotation I ever seen at least in the last 10 Y, but again that's me.

 

Then you haven't been closely following the Red Sox for the last 10 years, and you ignored a lot of what was posted at the beginning of the thread too.

[sk7326]

I do not like at all that logic/strategy. While they are putting all their chips on Offense, the pitching looks like very fragile.

 

Another view of it. You can get the pitcher you want in two ways (outside of development which is a nonissue right now). You can sign it or trade for it. Right now, the sign supply is essentially nil with Lester and Scherzer gone (with very real questions about the latter given the salary that won that auction). So next is the trade supply - but in 2015 baseball that is hard to do in this environment.

 

1. With the economics, almost no team is desperately poor in a way that forces them to clear payroll

2. With the additional wild card, almost every team can dream of a Royals-like run. The awful truth needs a couple of months to reveal itself.

 

Giving up the game and saying that we have to get the starter for April now now now is a recipe for a massive overvaluatiion.

[User Name]

I do not like at all that logic/strategy. While they are putting all their chips on Offense, the pitching looks like very fragile.

 

Number 1 is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, number 2 is wrong. It's not that they're putting all their chips on offense, they're just betting from natural improvement from several young pitchers and the blossoming of some of their own pitching prosepcts. It's a risky strategy, but it has worked for other teams. You have lauded the TB FO several times for their approach to building a pitching staff, and this approach is very similar to what they have been doing for a number of years now. So do you, or don't you like the "go young and projectable" approach to building a pitching staff?

[User Name]

Another view of it. You can get the pitcher you want in two ways (outside of development which is a nonissue right now). You can sign it or trade for it. Right now, the sign supply is essentially nil with Lester and Scherzer gone (with very real questions about the latter given the salary that won that auction). So next is the trade supply - but in 2015 baseball that is hard to do in this environment.

 

1. With the economics, almost no team is desperately poor in a way that forces them to clear payroll

2. With the additional wild card, almost every team can dream of a Royals-like run. The awful truth needs a couple of months to reveal itself.

 

Giving up the game and saying that we have to get the starter for April now now now is a recipe for a massive overvaluatiion.

 

I don't think some people quite understand the logic behind the way the Red Sox constructed the current rotation, even though it's actually quite simple. They went younger and more projectable while giving themselves the opportunity to add to the rotation at their price and their time. There's something to be said about upside and flexibility. I am firmly on the "they need an ace" camp, but that doesn't preclude me from looking at the bigger picture. The "do it now" mentality is not conductive to good business, and even more so in the current economic environment baseball is experiencing.

 

Great minds think alike.

[Spudboy]

I wonder where Shields will end up?

 

Has his price fallen? What teams need him?

[iortiz]

Then you haven't been closely following the Red Sox for the last 10 years, and you ignored a lot of what was posted at the beginning of the thread too.

 

No, just the opposite. I think that while we haven't spent big bucks in pitching probably since Lackey (and which have been saying in recent years) they have assembled the worst version following that logic, fragile pitching staffs and strong O teams on paper.

Edited January 30, 2015 by iortiz

[iortiz]

Number 1 is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, number 2 is wrong. It's not that they're putting all their chips on offense, they're just betting from natural improvement from several young pitchers and the blossoming of some of their own pitching prosepcts. It's a risky strategy, but it has worked for other teams. You have lauded the TB FO several times for their approach to building a pitching staff, and this approach is very similar to what they have been doing for a number of years now. So do you, or don't you like the "go young and projectable" approach to building a pitching staff?

 

TB do not have money. We have. You have that leverage and you are not using it at pitching. As I said, the mix is the prudent way to go, and will give you more chances to succeed.

[a700hitter]

I do not like at all that logic/strategy. While they are putting all their chips on Offense, the pitching looks like very fragile.

There is nothing flexible about our rotation. We have 5 starters, none of which is an aces and none which projects to be an ace. As has been pointed out by other posters, there is little pitching depth that can be turned to in our minors to step in if the oft-injured Buch and injured Masterson go down. That depth which had been Ruby, Webster and Renaudo are all gone. I don't understand the confidence that we will be able to add to the staff in-season. Our track record over many seasons proves that it is not easy to improve your staff in-season.

 

As for the "more projectible" comment, I don't even know what that means and how this staff would be "more projectible" than a staff with a big horse pulling our wagon.

[Spudboy]

No, just the opposite. I think that while we haven't sepent big bucks in pitching probably since Lackey (and which have been saying in recent years) they have assembled the worst version following that logic, fragile pitching staffs and strong O teams on paper.

 

I just don't understand your gloom and doom perception.

 

Granted, there are questions about health, etc. with this staff. And I would feel a lot better if there were proven 200 inning guys and real depth in the farm.

 

The Sox addressed two needs this off season. As it turned out they were able to get one of the best hitters in the game and a pretty good hitter to fill a void at 3rd base.

 

I do not believe the FO purposely decided to build a stout offense at the expense of sacrificing a good rotation. It is more like the FO responded to what was available now.

[User Name]

You don't need to spend big bucks to build a decent pitching staff. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. Cost =/= effectiveness.

[iortiz]

I just don't understand your gloom and doom perception.

 

Granted, there are questions about health, etc. with this staff. And I would feel a lot better if there were proven 200 inning guys and real depth in the farm.

 

The Sox addressed two needs this off season. As it turned out they were able to get one of the best hitters in the game and a pretty good hitter to fill a void at 3rd base.

 

I do not believe the FO purposely decided to build a stout offense at the expense of sacrificing a good rotation. It is more like the FO responded to what was available now.

I think they thought Lester was a guaranteed addition. It was not. They shitted the bed, so they had to sign this combo in order to try compense that mistake since they were not going to Scherzer and apparently neither for Shields.

Edited January 30, 2015 by iortiz

[iortiz]

You don't need to spend big bucks to build a decent pitching staff. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. Cost =/= effectiveness.

 

A couple of good arms wouldn't hurt anybody mostly to one of the highest payrolls in baseball, problem is and has been the strategy/distribution of the payroll.

Edited January 30, 2015 by iortiz

[Spudboy]

A couple of good arms wouldn't hurt anybody mostly to one of the highest payrolls in baseball, problem is and has been the strategy/distribution of the payroll.

 

True. But a team looking for sustained success also needs to seek value. Sometimes it's best to hold off from signing inflated prices when the timing of those pitchers availability does not coincide with your needs.

 

In a perfect world the Sox could use their financial strength to build a contender overnight that would remain competitive for several or many years.

 

Otherwise, team building may take more than just one off season. Be patient.

[User Name]

Anthony Castrovince on this very topic of discussion: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/107779450/anthony-castrovince-red-sox-dont-need-true-ace-to-succeed

[User Name]

True. But a team looking for sustained success also needs to seek value. Sometimes it's best to hold off from signing inflated prices when the timing of those pitchers availability does not coincide with your needs.

 

In a perfect world the Sox could use their financial strength to build a contender overnight that would remain competitive for several or many years.

 

Otherwise, team building may take more than just one off season. Be patient.

 

Asking for a lot there, big fella.

[sk7326]

There is nothing flexible about our rotation. We have 5 starters, none of which is an aces and none which projects to be an ace. As has been pointed out by other posters, there is little pitching depth that can be turned to in our minors to step in if the oft-injured Buch and injured Masterson go down. That depth which had been Ruby, Webster and Renaudo are all gone. I don't understand the confidence that we will be able to add to the staff in-season. Our track record over many seasons proves that it is not easy to improve your staff in-season.

 

As for the "more projectible" comment, I don't even know what that means and how this staff would be "more projectible" than a staff with a big horse pulling our wagon.

 

Whatever depth you were counting on with De La Rosa, Ranaudo and Webster is merely replaced by Barnes, Johnson and Owens and (probably not) Rodriguez.

[Palodios]

You don't need to spend big bucks to build a decent pitching staff. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. Cost =/= effectiveness.

 

Miley and Porcello were great additions to the team. The rest of the rotation seems like it has a lot of question marks. Buchholz and Masterson both had awful 2014s. Kelly has potential, but he has never broken 120 IP in the majors.

 

Who is depth for those guys? The Red Sox traded the only prospects who saw major league starts in Webster, Ranaudo, RDLR. Wright and Barnes are next on the list, but they didn't get playing time last September. The rotation seems very unfinished.

[Spudboy]

Asking for a lot there, big fella.

 

Probably. I don't fault Ortiz's emotion in the matter. We all want a winning team now. I have said this many times in the past. The Sox should always put a team on the field that is competitive. The market demands it and the Sox have the resources to do it.

 

However, I like what the Sox have done this off season. They have shown some restraint while getting some guys that will make the team competitive and relevant.

 

Of course I must be a bag lapping FO shill.

 

Or boot licker.

[cp176]

Whatever depth you were counting on with De La Rosa, Ranaudo and Webster is merely replaced by Barnes, Johnson and Owens and (probably not) Rodriguez.

 

Curious to know why you believe that Barnes and Johnson are ahead of Rodriguez? I get it with Owens. At this point in time I would still lean toward Rodriguez but that's just me I guess.

[User Name]

Miley and Porcello were great additions to the team. The rest of the rotation seems like it has a lot of question marks. Buchholz and Masterson both had awful 2014s. Kelly has potential, but he has never broken 120 IP in the majors.

 

Who is depth for those guys? The Red Sox traded the only prospects who saw major league starts in Webster, Ranaudo, RDLR. Wright and Barnes are next on the list, but they didn't get playing time last September. The rotation seems very unfinished.

 

Owens has an ETA of mid-2-16, and they gotta find out what they have in Barnes and Johnsonn as SK said. You gotta try these guys out.

[sk7326]

Curious to know why you believe that Barnes and Johnson are ahead of Rodriguez? I get it with Owens. At this point in time I would still lean toward Rodriguez but that's just me I guess.

 

From what I have read and seen (the latter more with Barnes) - Rodriguez has the most star potential. He is also the furthest away - fastball command, development of a second pitch, that sort of thing. But he also hung in at AA (the real weeding ground for prospects) at a young age. Johnson is probably the most polished guy in the org - but a meh fastball and no wipeout off speed pitch. But on feel and polish he can probably make some starts for the big club without embarassing anybody. Barnes has the polish expected from a college guy, but also the limited ceiling. But Barnes of the guys they ran out last year at the end, was (granted in relief mostly) the most impressive stuff outside of De La Rosa.

 

I don't think Ranaudo ever showed that he had anything to get big leaguers out - let alone three times through a batting order. Webster will always be a tease because of his raw stuff but the feel has been late in coming.

[sk7326]

Owens has an ETA of mid-2-16, and they gotta find out what they have in Barnes and Johnsonn as SK said. You gotta try these guys out.

 

Owens ETA could be sooner - he's starting the year in AAA after all. But I don't think the org sees him as a taxi squad guy ... whenever he comes up, he ain't going back. The other guys (and Wright is there too) are much more "shuttle-worthy".

[iortiz]

Probably. I don't fault Ortiz's emotion in the matter. We all want a winning team now. I have said this many times in the past. The Sox should always put a team on the field that is competitive. The market demands it and the Sox have the resources to do it.

 

However, I like what the Sox have done this off season. They have shown some restraint while getting some guys that will make the team competitive and relevant.

 

Of course I must be a bag lapping FO shill.

 

Or boot licker.

 

Agree. We all want the Red Sox win this season. We only disagree about the strategy. While some feel ok going forward with this pitching staff, some of us do not. I see all the same mistakes we had in 2011, 2012 and 2014 regarding pitching but this year it is even more marked IMO. Hopefully I'm wrong and this pitching staff shows "El do de Pecho" haha.