2017 Rotation

[moonslav59]

Only in a vacuum.

 

I actually 100% disagree with this statement, any average offense should be scoring 4 runs more often than not, and if your starter is going 7.2 IP on a regular basis, the bullpen shouldn't be allowing too many subsequent runs (one every few games or so with that few innings going around), so a starter that goes nearly 8 innings and allows 4 runs has put an average team in a position to win the game in each and every one of those starts.

 

More times than not, middle relievers should not allow 2 ERs in 2 IP to bridge from 5.2 IP to 7.2 IP. In my given case, they could allow 3 ERs in 2 IP and be even with the second scenario.

[moonslav59]

Absolutely. I never understood all the knocks against Dempster, especially when you consider his intangibles along with his performance. Like you said, I'll take that any day.

 

Dempster was not a drag on the team on the field, and he was a big part of turning around the clubhouse malaise, but the knock was justified.

 

I seriously doubt we paid $13.5M for that much regression. Sure, some was expected, but not that much. Plus, you don't pay $13.5M for a 5th starter--not even now 4 years later as contracts have sky-rocketed for marginal SP'ers. He was expected to do better than a decent 5th starter.

 

ERA-

2012 81

Sox 109

 

WHIP

2012 1.20

Sox 1.45

 

FIP-

2012 91

Sox 120

 

QS%

2012 64

Sox 48

 

IP/GS

2012 6.2

Sox 5.8

 

WAR

'08 4.7

'09 3.6

'10 2.6

'11 2.5

'12 2.8

Sox 0.5

 

Run support:

2012 4.7

Sox 6.1

 

The Sox won in these Dempster starts:

IP ER

4.2 5

3.1 4

5.1 3

6.0 7

6.0 5

6.0 4

 

Had we lost 4 or 5 of these games, maybe memories may not have been so cheery.

 

Look, I'm fine with thinking his clubhouse presence made up for his decline on the mound. I'm fine with thinking an 0.5 WAR is good for a 5th starter, but to say you "never understood the knocks on Dempster" ignores the very significant performance decline he showed from 2012 to 2013. Surely, you should at least be able to "understand" why he got some criticism.

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

Dempster was not a drag on the team on the field, and he was a big part of turning around the clubhouse malaise, but the knock was justified.

 

Look, I'm fine with thinking his clubhouse presence made up for his decline on the mound. I'm fine with thinking an 0.5 WAR is good for a 5th starter, but to say you "never understood the knocks on Dempster" ignores the very significant performance decline he showed from 2012 to 2013. Surely, you should at least be able to "understand" why he got some criticism.

 

Perhaps I should have said that I don't agree with the knocks against Dempster, rather than I don't understand them.

 

As I said about Price, I think a lot of it is about perception, but I have no problem with what Dempster contributed to our team, regardless of his $13 mil salary.

[moonslav59]

Perhaps I should have said that I don't agree with the knocks against Dempster, rather than I don't understand them.

 

As I said about Price, I think a lot of it is about perception, but I have no problem with what Dempster contributed to our team, regardless of his $13 mil salary.

 

OK, cool. I understand anyone who who thinks he was worth that money. Personally, I think he wasn't but it was close and I don't knock BC for the signing as I did with the Masterson one.

[notin]

Kendrick is garbage, but he is smart and necessary garbage. ..

[notin]

OK, cool. I understand anyone who who thinks he was worth that money. Personally, I think he wasn't but it was close and I don't knock BC for the signing as I did with the Masterson one.

 

I can't fault Cherington for the Masters in deal. The guy was one year removed from being the best pitcher on the Cleveland staff and was willing to sign a one year deal...

[Nick]

I can't fault Cherington for the Masters in deal. The guy was one year removed from being the best pitcher on the Cleveland staff and was willing to sign a one year deal...

 

$9.5M plus incentives was just too much.......

[moonslav59]

$9.5M plus incentives was just too much.......

 

I never understood the Masterson love fest.

 

2012-2014

ERA-

119 (54th out of 56 SP'ers with 500+ IP)

WHIP

1.41 (54/56)

 

2009-2014

ERA-

110 (50th out of 54)

WHIP

1.42 (53/54)

 

The guy didn't deserve $4.25M.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I never understood the Masterson love fest.

 

2012-2014

ERA-

119 (54th out of 56 SP'ers with 500+ IP)

WHIP

1.41 (54/56)

 

2009-2014

ERA-

110 (50th out of 54)

WHIP

1.42 (53/54)

 

The guy didn't deserve $4.25M.

 

 

The only explanation is that they were hoping for the 2013 Masterson and hoping the 2014 version was injured. But if he was injured in 2014 he was still injured in 2015. It was a bad signing to be sure.

[Kimmi]

OK, cool. I understand anyone who who thinks he was worth that money. Personally, I think he wasn't but it was close and I don't knock BC for the signing as I did with the Masterson one.

 

I have no problem with the Masterson signing. He didn't work out, but I thought he was worth the risk.

[Kimmi]

Kendrick is garbage, but he is smart and necessary garbage. ..

 

Keep the garbage coming.

 

Dombrowski has stated that he is looking to add more of these depth type players, both in pitching and in the OF. Players are reluctant to sign with the Sox, however, because our positions are so well set. Players are looking to sign with teams where they have a more realistic chance of getting regular playing time.

[Bellhorn04]

I have no problem with the Masterson signing. He didn't work out, but I thought he was worth the risk.

 

They may not have done their due diligence on Masterson very well. He had a significant loss of velocity.

[Kimmi]

$9.5M plus incentives was just too much.......

 

It was too much. Just as Dempster's $13 mil salary was too much. That said, I really don't have a problem with taking a chance on a player on a one or two year deal like that. I have always preferred shorter term deals for more money per year. If the player stinks, it's much easier to eat that contract than it is to eat a long term one.

[Kimmi]

They may not have done their due diligence on Masterson very well. He had a significant loss of velocity.

 

He did. As you mentioned, I think they were banking on him rebounding from an injury.

 

They were wrong on that one.

[notin]

Keep the garbage coming.

 

Dombrowski has stated that he is looking to add more of these depth type players, both in pitching and in the OF. Players are reluctant to sign with the Sox, however, because our positions are so well set. Players are looking to sign with teams where they have a more realistic chance of getting regular playing time.

 

Once a player is willing to take a minor league deal, the Sox should start looking like one of the better options, given their pitching depth in the upper minors and outfielder contract nightmares at that same level...

[notin]

They may not have done their due diligence on Masterson very well. He had a significant loss of velocity.

 

He did have a poor year, but if you're going to be wrong, better off being writing a one year deal as opposed to a seven year one...

[Bellhorn04]

He did have a poor year, but if you're going to be wrong, better off being writing a one year deal as opposed to a seven year one...

 

Yeah, maybe. We've heard the same about Buch's one year deal in 2016. You're not hurt in the pocketbook, but you can certainly be hurt on the field.

[moonslav59]

It was too much. Just as Dempster's $13 mil salary was too much. That said, I really don't have a problem with taking a chance on a player on a one or two year deal like that. I have always preferred shorter term deals for more money per year. If the player stinks, it's much easier to eat that contract than it is to eat a long term one.

 

I've always disliked the idea of building a staff by adding a 5th starter.

 

1) They rarely work out to the extent that they often don't even pitch like a number 5.

 

Dempster (actually signed to be a #3-4 type), Masterson, Penny, Smoltz, Aaron Cook, Padilla, and on and on...

 

Build from the top 2 or 3 or don't build at all- use the money on the pen as you'll need it.

 

One reason I am ecstatic over the Sale trade.

[S5Dewey]

I've always disliked the idea of building a staff by adding a 5th starter.

 

1) They rarely work out to the extent that they often don't even pitch like a number 5.

 

Dempster (actually signed to be a #3-4 type), Masterson, Penny, Smoltz, Aaron Cook, Padilla, and on and on...

 

Build from the top 2 or 3 or don't build at all- use the money on the pen as you'll need it.

 

One reason I am ecstatic over the Sale trade.

 

I don't understand why you're so down on Ryan Dempster and I'm also not sure how he got relegated to being considered #5. Lester & lackey were at the top followed by Buch (when he was healthy). After that we had Dubront and Dempster - who are essentially the same pitcher. Then we had guys like Workman & Aceves getting spot starts, both of whom weren't as good as Dempster. It would be a lot more reasonable to consider RD as a #3-4 depending on Buch's health at the moment

 

Sure, he was probably the highest paid #3-4 pitcher in the league but (without doing all the research) he may have also been the best #3-4 pitcher in the league if you believe in the intangibles. Which I do.

[moonslav59]

I don't understand why you're so down on Ryan Dempster and I'm also not sure how he got relegated to being considered #5. Lester & lackey were at the top followed by Buch (when he was healthy). After that we had Dubront and Dempster - who are essentially the same pitcher. Then we had guys like Workman & Aceves getting spot starts, both of whom weren't as good as Dempster. It would be a lot more reasonable to consider RD as a #3-4 depending on Buch's health at the moment

 

Sure, he was probably the highest paid #3-4 pitcher in the league but (without doing all the research) he may have also been the best #3-4 pitcher in the league if you believe in the intangibles. Which I do.

 

I don't understand why so many people think the very very steep decline Dempster showed in 2013 was ok. Look at the numbers; he did not give us what we expected on the mound. It is clear as day.

 

Now, the clubhouse presence is another matter, and I have recognized him for that contribution. He did not do badly, but that's not what we paid him for.

 

I've admitted he brought some value to the team, but the big Dempster supporters have never admitted he declined on the mound significantly. Please look at these numbers and tell me they were what we should have expected:

 

WAR

10 2.6

11 2.5

12 2.8

13 0.5

 

His ERA- went from 81 to 109 from 2012 to 2013.

 

His WHIP went from 1.20 to 1.45.

 

At least acknowledge he declined by more than the usual age regression curve.

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

Once a player is willing to take a minor league deal, the Sox should start looking like one of the better options, given their pitching depth in the upper minors and outfielder contract nightmares at that same level...

 

I guess the players are looking at teams where they can get a ST invite with a fair shot of actually making the team out of camp. Short of that, I agree that we should look like one of the better options.

[S5Dewey]

I don't understand why so many people think the very very steep decline Dempster showed in 2013 was ok. Look at the numbers; he did not give us what we expected on the mound. It is clear as day.

 

Now, the clubhouse presence is another matter, and I have recognized him for that contribution. He did not do badly, but that's not what we paid him for.

 

I've admitted he brought some value to the team, but the big Dempster supporters have never admitted he declined on the mound significantly. Please look at these numbers and tell me they were what we should have expected:

 

WAR

10 2.6

11 2.5

12 2.8

13 0.5

 

His ERA- went from 81 to 109 from 2012 to 2013.

 

His WHIP went from 1.20 to 1.45.

 

At least acknowledge he declined by more than the usual age regression curve.

 

 

Sure, but you're looking at it from "the glass is half empty" perspective. No, he didn't perform as we could reasonably have expected him to. At the same time, from a "the glass is half full" perspective he brought a "4.5 ERA in six innings" year and consistently kept his team in games that he pitched in. How many guys are going to do that for you at the middle/end of the rotation? At the end of the day his contribution was very instrumental in the Sox winning the WS.

 

I don't get people being all wrapped around the axle about how much money he made. I'm more interested in contribution. His salary obviously didn't keep the Sox from picking up someone who could have helped win it - because they DID win it. There were no long term ramifications of his getting that $13M because he walked away from it the next year. (What a classy move, BTW!) What I care about is the contribution he made toward bringing that trophy home - and that contribution was very significant. Whatever they paid him - in comparison to someone else who may have played for less and not had as good a year - was worth it.

[moonslav59]

Sure, but you're looking at it from "the glass is half empty" perspective. No, he didn't perform as we could reasonably have expected him to. At the same time, from a "the glass is half full" perspective he brought a "4.5 ERA in six innings" year and consistently kept his team in games that he pitched in. How many guys are going to do that for you at the middle/end of the rotation? At the end of the day his contribution was very instrumental in the Sox winning the WS.

 

I don't get people being all wrapped around the axle about how much money he made. I'm more interested in contribution. His salary obviously didn't keep the Sox from picking up someone who could have helped win it - because they DID win it. There were no long term ramifications of his getting that $13M because he walked away from it the next year. (What a classy move, BTW!) What I care about is the contribution he made toward bringing that trophy home - and that contribution was very significant. Whatever they paid him - in comparison to someone else who may have played for less and not had as good a year - was worth it.

 

I'm not upset about the signing or the results. It's winter with nothing else to talk about.

 

It was very classy for him to retire and take us off the hook for the rest of his contract.

 

He did fine as a number 5, but I'm just saying he didn't perform as expected. Even figuring in a regression from about a 2.5 WAR to 2.0 or even 1.5, he came up very short. I was hoping he'd become a solid #3 and take the pressure off Buch.

[Bellhorn04]

Dempster was one more pitcher who had a very tough first year in Boston, numbers-wise.

[Bellhorn04]

Another point about Dempster is that he had also struggled with Texas the year before after being traded from the Cubs. In fact, if you look at his career breakdown by teams, the only place he really thrived was with the Cubs.

[a700hitter]

I predict that we will get nothing out of Kendrick. He was once mediocre, but no longer. He is shot.

[Jack Flap]

A lot would have to simultaneously go wrong for us to even have to think about calling up Kendrick, so let's hope we get nothing out of him.

[moonslav59]

A lot would have to simultaneously go wrong for us to even have to think about calling up Kendrick, so let's hope we get nothing out of him.

 

Well, last year we ended up using O'Sullivan in early May for 4 starts. He was maybe our 9th or 10th starter on the depth chart as season start.

 

Kendrick may pitch himself into the 7th or 8th slot this spring.

[Bellhorn04]

A guy like Sean O'Sullivan can be of use. O'Sullivan's overall numbers were horrible, but we won all 4 of his starts. He was at least able to get through about 5 innings giving up 3-4 runs. If the offense scores some runs and the bullpen holds you can win those games. Much less than ideal but much better than nothing.

[moonslav59]

A guy like Sean O'Sullivan can be of use. O'Sullivan's overall numbers were horrible, but we won all 4 of his starts. He was at least able to get through about 5 innings giving up 3-4 runs. If the offense scores some runs and the bullpen holds you can win those games. Much less than ideal but much better than nothing.

 

It would be nicer to have someone better than O'Sullivan and Kendrick, but having a very solid 6 starters is something we haven't had in a while. We still have Owens, Johnson, Elias and Kendrick to choose from for our #7. That's about the same as what we have had over the years for 7-10 starter.