2017 Rotation Discussion

[Nick]

The Gray rumors are a little surprising.

 

If the team has no intention of utilizing Devers this year then we need a 3B. It's not fair for others to play along side a black hole. How much of an upgrade is Gray over Sale/Price/Porcello/E Rod/Pom? Who sits if everyone is healthy? Did we not pick up depth when we added Fister?

[Bellhorn04]

If the team has no intention of utilizing Devers this year then we need a 3B. It's not fair for others to play along side a black hole. How much of an upgrade is Gray over Sale/Price/Porcello/E Rod/Pom? Who sits if everyone is healthy? Did we not pick up depth when we added Fister?

 

Maybe we trade them E-Rod...who knows? It's all just rumors and speculation.

[Jack Flap]

I hadn't heard those whispers but I'm not crazy about it unless we could get him VERY cheaply. IMO a new 3B would help this team more than another pitcher.

 

That's basically how I feel. IMO:

-He hasn't been good for 2 years.

-Even when he was good, he was a tad overrated (not a top-tier ace like someone like Sale, but more a #2 type).

-Knowing Dombrowski, any move for Gray would devastate what's left of the farm.

-And above all, as you say, we need a 3B far more than we do another SP.

 

Given all of the above, I'd pass. I see the Fister pickup as exactly the kind of move we need to be making to shore up the rotation at the moment.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Jack Flap

[moonslav59]

In my opinion, we should keep Devers, Travis and Groome. They all play positions we need or will need very soon. Talk of trading ERod, even for a healthy Gray or "Moose" scares me.

 

I'm fine with trading a non top 3 prospect for something very useful, but I hope we don't go overboard.

[S5Dewey]

In my opinion, we should keep Devers, Travis and Groome. They all play positions we need or will need very soon. Talk of trading ERod, even for a healthy Gray or "Moose" scares me.

 

I'm fine with trading a non top 3 prospect for something very useful, but I hope we don't go overboard.

 

I'm really good with this post.

 

While I like the idea of being "all in" for 2017-18 i'm not "all in" for trading away what could be one of the best pitchers going forward after that who could be kept for a reasonable price. That would be (IMHO!) Stupid!

[S5Dewey]

And aren't we glad we didn't overpay for Sonny Gray back when we had the chance?

[Bellhorn04]

And aren't we glad we didn't overpay for Sonny Gray back when we had the chance?

 

Yep, you win some, you lose some.

[Spudboy]

Pomeranz is definitely on a roll lately, which is great to see.

 

Am I the only one kind of worried by these recent whispers of Red Sox interest in Sonny Gray?

 

I was a proponent of trading for Gray for a couple of years.

 

He has not been the same guy for a while and I really don't know why. I heard that his last few starts were encouraging.

 

Oddly I don't want to see the Sox trade for Gray now. I don't want to lose more assets and I think we have enough pitching ( if all goes okay health wise ).

 

I know that you can never have enough pitching. I agree with that idea. But at what cost?

Sox may have been just doing their due diligence in scouting Gray.

 

We'll see.

[Spudboy]

That's basically how I feel. IMO:

-He hasn't been good for 2 years.

-Even when he was good, he was a tad overrated (not a top-tier ace like someone like Sale, but more a #2 type).

-Knowing Dombrowski, any move for Gray would devastate what's left of the farm.

-And above all, as you say, we need a 3B far more than we do another SP.

 

Given all of the above, I'd pass. I see the Fister pickup as exactly the kind of move we need to be making to shore up the rotation at the moment.

 

This explains almost perfectly how I see it.

 

Good post.

[moonslav59]

I'm really good with this post.

 

While I like the idea of being "all in" for 2017-18 i'm not "all in" for trading away what could be one of the best pitchers going forward after that who could be kept for a reasonable price. That would be (IMHO!) Stupid!

 

We seem to be agreeing a lot lately.

 

 

We've always been on the same page with superb SS defense being a top priority, but now it seems like we agree on everything.

[moonslav59]

That's basically how I feel. IMO:

-He hasn't been good for 2 years.

-Even when he was good, he was a tad overrated (not a top-tier ace like someone like Sale, but more a #2 type).

-Knowing Dombrowski, any move for Gray would devastate what's left of the farm.

-And above all, as you say, we need a 3B far more than we do another SP.

 

Given all of the above, I'd pass. I see the Fister pickup as exactly the kind of move we need to be making to shore up the rotation at the moment.

 

I'd like to have Gray, but there's too much of aa Buch-factor risk involved. Always wondering about injury or which guy will show up tonight.

 

That being said, I did view Gray as an ace from 2013-2015. (Note: I view an ace as being a clear top 30 starter for 2 or more consecutive years or 2 in 3 years, if an injury is involved.)

 

Gray was top 30 in WAR from 2014-2015.

 

He was 9th out of the 74 starters with 450 IP from 2013-2015 in ERA (76). That's one point behind Scherzer and Felix and 1+ point ahead of Lester, Price, Kluber and Bumgarner.

 

16th out of 74 in WHIP at 1.13

 

21/74 in xFip- at 89 which is better than Cueto.

 

His K rate was not as high as others and he's 42nd in K/BB (2.74).

 

He was an ace from the time he came up in 2013 to the end of 2015. 2015 is a long time ago.

 

I'd pass on Gray, unless our scouts think he's back to form and the price does not include ERod or a top 3 prospect. That ain't happening, so NO GO!

 

[mvp 78]

http://news.soxprospects.com/2017/06/scouting-scratch-owens-callahan-and.html

 

Left-hander Henry Owens was demoted to Double-A on Monday after a string of poor starts with Pawtucket. For the year, Owens has 60 walks in 69 innings, and in his last three starts he has walked 19 hitters in 15 2/3 innings. I was at the second start of that stretch, when he walked four over seven innings. This was a weird outing for Owens, who struggled for the first two innings, then retired 14 hitters in a row. His overall line was seven innings, three hits, two runs with four walks and five strikeouts.

 

It was clear from the start that Owens was struggling with his mechanics. He has been tinkering with them significantly since the beginning of the year including raising his hands at the start and going to a full windup. The Red Sox announced along with the demotion that they plan to drop Owens’ arm slot from high three-quarters to a true three-quarters. At this point, something had to be done—even though Owens had a couple strong innings in the start I saw, it was clear something wasn’t right with his mechanics. Owens long limbs mean he has a lot of moving parts than can be tough to keep in sync. In this outing, Owens was starting on the third base side of the rubber, but his foot was landing on the first base side and pointing in different directions each pitch. His arm was also dragging behind, leading to him constantly missing high and arm-side.

 

Owens’ velocity was also inconsistent, varying from 86-92 mph, but primarily sitting 88-90 mph. He couldn’t control his fastball, and when he was successful, he was pitching backwards off of his curveball and changeup. His curveball and changeup both weren’t as good as I had seen in past years either. His curveball was rolling to the plate and he struggled to find a consistent release point for it, failing to record a single swinging strike against it. His changeup lacked the downward movement it had shown in the past and also didn’t fool any hitters, which used to be something he could rely on even when he was struggling.

 

I hope Owens can figure it out, but he's closer to flaming out than ever pitching in the majors again.

[cp176]

As I recall, Owens was never projected higher than mid-rotation. It would have been wonderful if he could have gotten to that point. He still might I guess but in the meantime he won't be pitching for us and his trade value is greatly limited. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't.

[mvp 78]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/06/trade-rumblings-athletics-gray-marlins-red-sox-yankees-martin-prado-tigers-verlander-trade-deadline-padres-brad-hand.html

 

Rival executives feel that the Tigers will market veteran righty Justin Verlander, Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports writes, though Detroit’s intentions (and asking price) remain unclear. He’d be an easy product to pitch were this 2016, when Verlander was in vintage form. But he hasn’t followed that up with any degree of consistency thus far in 2017. Still, the $56MM he’s owed in 2018 and 2019 seems fairly reasonable, and it’s hard to ignore the top-line upside that still seems to reside in Verlander’s powerful right arm.

 

I think it's more likely DD makes a move for Verlander than for Prado. That's a lot of money though.

[Spudboy]

It sucks to see someone who is trying their best struggle.

[moonslav59]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/06/trade-rumblings-athletics-gray-marlins-red-sox-yankees-martin-prado-tigers-verlander-trade-deadline-padres-brad-hand.html

 

Rival executives feel that the Tigers will market veteran righty Justin Verlander, Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports writes, though Detroit’s intentions (and asking price) remain unclear. He’d be an easy product to pitch were this 2016, when Verlander was in vintage form. But he hasn’t followed that up with any degree of consistency thus far in 2017. Still, the $56MM he’s owed in 2018 and 2019 seems fairly reasonable, and it’s hard to ignore the top-line upside that still seems to reside in Verlander’s powerful right arm.

 

I think it's more likely DD makes a move for Verlander than for Prado. That's a lot of money though.

 

Groome, Chavis and Pablo for Verlander.

 

(LOL)

[S5Dewey]

Groome, Chavis and Pablo for Verlander.

 

(LOL)

 

And they'd reply, "We'll take Groome and Chavis straight up, but if you try to make us take Sandoval the deal is off".

[moonslav59]

And they'd reply, "We'll take Groome and Chavis straight up, but if you try to make us take Sandoval the deal is off".

 

True enough!

 

Pablo is owed $41M for 2018-2019 (counting the $5M buyout for 2020).

 

Verlander is owed $56M for '18'-'19.

 

The $15M saved is not what Detroit has in mind. Even if we paid $26M of Pablo's $41, they'd probably say no.

 

Note: if we trade for Verlander without giving up substantial salary in return, we'll be over the luxury limit this year and NO RESET!

 

I think Verlander would be owed about $9M of his luxury tax $26M number for the remaining one-third of the year. If we could get Detroit to pay just enough of Pablo's contract to keep us under the limit this year, we could consider it, but then we are way over next year and 2019, when we will need to start extending people or losing them.

 

As much as I love acquiring top starters, I have to say no (in theory).

[S5Dewey]

True enough!

 

Pablo is owed $41M for 2018-2019 (counting the $5M buyout for 2020).

 

Verlander is owed $56M for '18'-'19.

 

The $15M saved is not what Detroit has in mind. Even if we paid $26M of Pablo's $41, they'd probably say no.

 

Note: if we trade for Verlander without giving up substantial salary in return, we'll be over the luxury limit this year and NO RESET!

 

I think Verlander would be owed about $9M of his luxury tax $26M number for the remaining one-third of the year. If we could get Detroit to pay just enough of Pablo's contract to keep us under the limit this year, we could consider it, but then we are way over next year and 2019, when we will need to start extending people or losing them.

 

As much as I love acquiring top starters, I have to say no (in theory).

 

No. I was thinking that even if we paid ALL of Sandoval's salary they still wouldn't take that deadwood.

[S5Dewey]

True enough!

 

Pablo is owed $41M for 2018-2019 (counting the $5M buyout for 2020).

 

Verlander is owed $56M for '18'-'19.

 

The $15M saved is not what Detroit has in mind. Even if we paid $26M of Pablo's $41, they'd probably say no.

 

Note: if we trade for Verlander without giving up substantial salary in return, we'll be over the luxury limit this year and NO RESET!

 

I think Verlander would be owed about $9M of his luxury tax $26M number for the remaining one-third of the year. If we could get Detroit to pay just enough of Pablo's contract to keep us under the limit this year, we could consider it, but then we are way over next year and 2019, when we will need to start extending people or losing them.

 

As much as I love acquiring top starters, I have to say no (in theory).

 

But I agree, that Verlander deal doesn't work for either team. That's too bad, too. Verlander is the kind of guy who could be a big help in a pennant drive.

[moonslav59]

No. I was thinking that even if we paid ALL of Sandoval's salary they still wouldn't take that deadwood.

 

LOL.

 

They could just cut him immediately.

 

How about Pablo, Travis, Chavis, and Lakins for Miggy?

[Kimmi]

You watch out for that cliff! When he moves Devers for "Moose", it will be here sooner than you had planned!

 

LOL

 

Don't worry, I've got your backs when we take the plunge.

[Kimmi]

Farrell the motivator!

 

I wonder how many wins Farrell gained for the team with that speech.

[Kimmi]

It sucks to see someone who is trying their best struggle.

 

Yes, it does.

[notin]

No. I was thinking that even if we paid ALL of Sandoval's salary they still wouldn't take that deadwood.

 

 

Yet they might be willing to take Sandoval (plus prospects) if it meant they could unload Miguel Cabrera, who is still owed about $198million and doesn't have an OPS above .800.

 

And the one guy who actually thought giving a 32 year old future Hall of Famer an 8 year $240mill contract was a good idea is currently running y he Sox

[notin]

LOL.

 

They could just cut him immediately.

 

How about Pablo, Travis, Chavis, and Lakins for Miggy?

 

Only if the Sox can also include Rusney Castillo plus a bad contract to be named later...

[moonslav59]

Only if the Sox can also include Rusney Castillo plus a bad contract to be named later...

 

Pretty bad when taking on $41M for Pablo barely puts a dent in what's owed Miggy up to what? Age 55?

 

Pablo, Porcello, Castillo, Travis, Chavis and Lakins for Verlander and Miggy would still put us way over the luxury tax (for many years to come).

 

Just say NO! to the large and long deals with most years post-prime.

 

[moonslav59]

And the one guy who actually thought giving a 32 year old future Hall of Famer an 8 year $240mill contract was a good idea is currently running y he Sox.

 

Makes it seem like maybe acquiring Verlander might be on DD's radar.

[Kimmi]

Pretty bad when taking on $41M for Pablo barely puts a dent in what's owed Miggy up to what? Age 55?

 

Pablo, Porcello, Castillo, Travis, Chavis and Lakins for Verlander and Miggy would still put us way over the luxury tax (for many years to come).

 

Just say NO! to the large and long deals with most years post-prime.

 

 

No matter how many times these long term deals turn out bad, which is the large majority of times, it amazes me that GMs still do them and fans still encourage them. They are as bad as drugs. JUST SAY NO!

[Kimmi]

And the one guy who actually thought giving a 32 year old future Hall of Famer an 8 year $240mill contract was a good idea is currently running y he Sox.

 

Makes it seem like maybe acquiring Verlander might be on DD's radar.

 

I am guessing Verlander is very much on Dombrowski's radar.