The 2018 Bullpen Season Thread

[Jasonbay44]

I think its pretty clear that we absolutely cannot have Kelly and Hembree on the playoff roster. Both have way too many blow ups.

[Spudboy]

what are you willing to give Kimbrel to stay?

 

I keep saying 3/48 should get it done.

[Spudboy]

Men who dabble in Jesus Monteros should not cast the first stone.

 

Don't forget the immortal Franciso Cervelli!!11!1!!!11!

[Kimmi]

Pretty easy to see, although Barnes needs to show he is okay. The question I have is whether Workman gets the final spot. Certainly Kelly has had problems and Hembree is at the extreme back of the line and should be gone next season.

 

I would probably have Workman on the roster. I've always been a Joe Kelly fan, but even I have to say no to him.

[Kimmi]

Further evidence that managers and GM don't put as much weight on the most recent tiny sample sizes many here seem to value so highly.

 

Yup. Cora said as much about a week ago. He said he would not be making his decisions based on small samples.

[moonslav59]

I would probably have Workman on the roster. I've always been a Joe Kelly fan, but even I have to say no to him.

 

I agree. I'd tke Poyner over Kelly, as well.

 

I'm also thinking we may try to bypass most of our weak set-up men by having ERod or Eovaldi give us 2-3 IP twice in 5 games and Wright give us 2-4 IP twice. We could also carry Johnson and/or Velazquez to do the same, if needed. Since i really think carrying 11 pitchers for the first series makes the most sense, having multiple guys that can long innings makes the most sense, especially if we hit extra innings at some point.

 

Sale

Price

Porcello

Eovaldi

ERod

Wright

Johnson and/or Velazquez

Workman, Poyner, Hembree or Velazquez

Barnes

Braiser

Kimbrel

 

I know it looks scary carrying just 3 eighth to ninth inning RP'ers, but guys like Hembree, Kelly and Pom scare me too much to trust them over one of our long men.

 

[FredLynn]

I agree. I'd tke Poyner over Kelly, as well.

 

I'm also thinking we may try to bypass most of our weak set-up men by having ERod or Eovaldi give us 2-3 IP twice in 5 games and Wright give us 2-4 IP twice. We could also carry Johnson and/or Velazquez to do the same, if needed. Since i really think carrying 11 pitchers for the first series makes the most sense, having multiple guys that can long innings makes the most sense, especially if we hit extra innings at some point.

 

Sale

Price

Porcello

Eovaldi

ERod

Wright

Johnson and/or Velazquez

Workman, Poyner, Hembree or Velazquez

Barnes

Braiser

Kimbrel

 

I know it looks scary carrying just 3 eighth to ninth inning RP'ers, but guys like Hembree, Kelly and Pom scare me too much to trust them over one of our long men.

 

 

That is because all three of those guys have sucked for a long time. None of them should be playing baseball this fall. I would have Workman AND Poyner but not Johnson or Velasquez.

[moonslav59]

That is because all three of those guys have sucked for a long time. None of them should be playing baseball this fall. I would have Workman AND Poyner but not Johnson or Velasquez.

 

2nd Half ERA/WHIP

3.52/0.91 Poyner (7.2 IP only)

3.57/1.37 Workman (22.2)

4.08/1.57 Velazquez (28.2)

4.30/1.37 Johnson (44)

 

4.70/1.65 Kelly (23)

5.61/1.69 Pom (34)

5.66/1.60 Thornburg (21)

5.71/1.44 Barnes (17)

5.82/1.53 Hembree (17)

 

Last 28 Days

0.00/1.20 Wright

0.90/0.70 Kimbrel

2.70/1.20 Workman

3.27/0.91 Brasier

3.52/0.91 Poyner

4.09/1.46 Velazquez

5.23/1.84 Johnson

7.27/1.73 Kelly

7.71/2.57 Scott (2.1 IP)

8.00/1.74 Pom

8.53/1.74 Hembree

9.53/2.29 Thornburg

12.46/1.08 Barnes (4.1 IP)

[oldtimer]

That is because all three of those guys have sucked for a long time. None of them should be playing baseball this fall. I would have Workman AND Poyner but not Johnson or Velasquez.

 

Those are the relievers I prefer as well, although Workman needs to avoid another meltdown where he refuses to throw strike. At least he has a sinker that can force groundouts.

[cp176]

what are you willing to give Kimbrel to stay?

 

Tough question for me to answer Slasher. It is all play money as far as I am concerned. We have the highest payroll in baseball and in all honesty I don't care. The players are overpaid and the owners have made and are making ridiculous amounts. My only point is I guess that bullpens are and will continue to be unpredictable and when you have someone out there who appears to be solid, you just need to think long and hard before letting him go. If the price gets to steep, he walks but he won't be easy to replace. The impression I get here is that some posters believe that losing him will be no big deal and that he can be replaced. Maybe and maybe not. It is a gamble.

[cp176]

It could also not matter.

 

Houston has been struggling with the closer role for the past 2 seasons and it hasn't hurt them.

 

If the bullpen has good pitchers, the closer becomes a little less relevant. Most people do seem to think that relief pitchers are inconsistent from year to year. This is backwards. The truth is, pitchers who are inconsistent from year to year become relief pitchers. There are plenty of relievers who consistent performers who can be had to build a bullpen. And the Sox will still have Thornburg, who was a very good reliever anf closer before the Sox acquired him. His struggles this year are very likely related to an injury and excessive time off. As long as there are no lingering effects to his shoulder, he is an excellent bounce back candidate to start the new 2019 bullpen, along with Barnes, Brasier, Poyner, and Hembree and possibly even Velasquez. Carson Smith is a non-tender candidate whose return is and should be in question.

 

So if the Sox go the free agent route, for example, there are a few intriguing candidates who won't break the bank like Kimbrel, including Jeurys Familia, Brad Brach, and Adam Ottavino. It's also possible to convert a talented starter to a reliever/closer role. (Obviously a closer role would be closer to starter money, making the transition more appealing.) Two candidates that leap out at me right away who cannot handle a full season as a starter but are very talented pitchers are Garrett Richards and Matt Harvey. (Tyson Ross should also consider the idea.)

 

All probably decent possibilities I guess but in my opinion a solid effort needs to be made to sign someone who has proven to be very reliable as opposed to taking risks. His asking price might be too high but someone will likely get a closer that can be counted on. Sometimes you just don't know nor do you appreciate what you actually have until it's gone.

[S5Dewey]

All probably decent possibilities I guess but in my opinion a solid effort needs to be made to sign someone who has proven to be very reliable as opposed to taking risks. His asking price might be too high but someone will likely get a closer that can be counted on. Sometimes you just don't know nor do you appreciate what you actually have until it's gone.

 

I wish I could take credit for this but I can't. Someone else posted it first but I'll repeat it because it's so true.

 

"Not having a lights-out closer isn't a big deal... until you don't have one."

[Kimmi]

Nobody is suggesting that we don't need or shouldn't sign a good closer, just that one can be signed for cheaper than what Kimbrel will cost.

[notin]

All probably decent possibilities I guess but in my opinion a solid effort needs to be made to sign someone who has proven to be very reliable as opposed to taking risks. His asking price might be too high but someone will likely get a closer that can be counted is severely mition. Sometimes you just don't know nor do you appreciate what you actually have until it's gone.

 

Many sportswriters overtly said Tony LaRussa was taking a huge risk by converting an aging starter to the closer role. But I think we both agree Dennis Eckersley worked out ok.

 

Very few minor league closers assume that same role in the majors. So therefore every closer was a risk at some point in his career. I’m ok with taking one. And by using an actual talented pitcher (like Richards or Harvey), that risk is severely mitigated.

 

Of course it is likely neither Richards nor (especially) Harvey is open to the idea...

[cp176]

Many sportswriters overtly said Tony LaRussa was taking a huge risk by converting an aging starter to the closer role. But I think we both agree Dennis Eckersley worked out ok.

 

Very few minor league closers assume that same role in the majors. So therefore every closer was a risk at some point in his career. I’m ok with taking one. And by using an actual talented pitcher (like Richards or Harvey), that risk is severely mitigated.

 

Of course it is likely neither Richards nor (especially) Harvey is open to the idea...

 

I agree and I think it probably is fairly safe to say the a huge majority of relief pitchers regardless of the role they play started out as starters. The question is though if you already have that guy why risk the change? If he prices himself out, then of course that is another matter. My point still remains that Kimbrel may be the best in the game and he currently plays for us. Trying to replace the best might not be an easy job.

[cp176]

I wish I could take credit for this but I can't. Someone else posted it first but I'll repeat it because it's so true.

 

"Not having a lights-out closer isn't a big deal... until you don't have one."

 

 

Yup - I'm just not sure that cheaping out and letting the best in the business walk away is the way to go. I think that in general relief pitchers and maybe even closers aren't that difficult to replace. In this case though, I think you have to consider what we have what he has done and what he very might well continue to do. The asking price might become too high but he is worth quite a bit more than the average reliever.

[OH FOY]

Just wait see what happens in the Play-offs. Kimbrel blows 2 games, things could change, he's lights out, then you think what to do. Way to early to worry about this.

[S5Dewey]

At the risk of reopening that Pandora's box called "Clutch", I've often believed that ML pitchers are some of the most clutch people in the game. There are many pitchers with good stuff and good location but the difference between being clutch and not clutch is what separates the good ones from the bad ones.

 

Picture this: Every pitch a pitcher throws has the potential for disaster. He not only has to throw a strike, to be really effective he has to be able to throw it to the exact spot he wants to. Now put yourself in a tie or one-run game where one mistake, one error by inches, can be the difference in the game. The good ones, the ones who are clutch, can do that a lot more frequently than the run-of-the-mill pitchers. That's why they're more successful.

[cp176]

Just wait see what happens in the Play-offs. Kimbrel blows 2 games, things could change, he's lights out, then you think what to do. Way to early to worry about this.

 

I'm not worried about it at all. It's all about the thread that I find interesting. it is a topic that I find interesting.

[oldtimer]

At the risk of reopening that Pandora's box called "Clutch", I've often believed that ML pitchers are some of the most clutch people in the game. There are many pitchers with good stuff and good location but the difference between being clutch and not clutch is what separates the good ones from the bad ones.

 

Picture this: Every pitch a pitcher throws has the potential for disaster. He not only has to throw a strike, to be really effective he has to be able to throw it to the exact spot he wants to. Now put yourself in a tie or one-run game where one mistake, one error by inches, can be the difference in the game. The good ones, the ones who are clutch, can do that a lot more frequently than the run-of-the-mill pitchers. That's why they're more successful.

 

Brasier has been great for us and he had one of those occur. It happens and we have to move on from there. The opponents pichers have the same concerns. Hopefully, we will weed out most of the guys who aren't performing so we will be the best we can be.

[OH FOY]

Not point out anyone in particular, or thread. Didn't mean to come out that way.

[cp176]

At the risk of reopening that Pandora's box called "Clutch", I've often believed that ML pitchers are some of the most clutch people in the game. There are many pitchers with good stuff and good location but the difference between being clutch and not clutch is what separates the good ones from the bad ones.

 

Picture this: Every pitch a pitcher throws has the potential for disaster. He not only has to throw a strike, to be really effective he has to be able to throw it to the exact spot he wants to. Now put yourself in a tie or one-run game where one mistake, one error by inches, can be the difference in the game. The good ones, the ones who are clutch, can do that a lot more frequently than the run-of-the-mill pitchers. That's why they're more successful.

 

Of course you know that I'm with you here but what the hell I also believe that protection in the lineup is a real thing as well as momentum. And for the record, if Mookie Betts was hitting in the 3 hole for us all season there would not be any debate whatsoever as to who the MVP is this year. His RBI total would more than shove him over the top.

[Kimmi]

If Kimbrel will sign for 3 years or less (my preference is 2 years), then great.

 

Otherwise, the Sox need to let him walk.

 

It would be a huge mistake to give Kimbrel a 4-5 year deal.

[moonslav59]

I can't see why he'd ever settle on 2 or even 3 years. This is his big payday. he's cashing in.

 

Somewhere else is what is best for us.

[cp176]

I can't see why he'd ever settle on 2 or even 3 years. This is his big payday. he's cashing in.

 

Somewhere else is what is best for us.

 

Once again - when you have the best in the game showing no real slippage the suggestion that overpaying him for possibly 3 years is a personal opinion based upon nothing other than what someone thinks the market will look like. The suggestion that it would represent a "huge " mistake once again is a personal opinion based upon what someone feels the franchise should do. It is likely that John Henry sees it differently.

[moonslav59]

Once again - when you have the best in the game showing no real slippage the suggestion that overpaying him for possibly 3 years is a personal opinion based upon nothing other than what someone thinks the market will look like. The suggestion that it would represent a "huge " mistake once again is a personal opinion based upon what someone feels the franchise should do. It is likely that John Henry sees it differently.

 

Yes, I thought it was assumed it was just my opinion.

 

If Henry is willing to stay near or go over the max penalty line for several years in a row, then I'm fine with bringing Kimbrel back for 3-5 years. I will say, I think he's bound to decline starting pretty soon, but he is one of the best, for sure.

 

To me, it's likely an either/or situation. If we bring back Kimbrel, it means we don't keep someone else or sign someone else.

 

I realize this is all conjecture, but I would not want a large percent of our payroll budget going to a closer who is likely to begin declining in a year or two.

[jacksonianmarch]

Slav, your team is within their window. Next year is the final season before major changes are likely to take effect. You don’t start pinching pennies now. If you drop Kimbrel, the team suffers.

[oldtimer]

Yes, I thought it was assumed it was just my opinion.

 

If Henry is willing to stay near or go over the max penalty line for several years in a row, then I'm fine with bringing Kimbrel back for 3-5 years. I will say, I think he's bound to decline starting pretty soon, but he is one of the best, for sure.

 

To me, it's likely an either/or situation. If we bring back Kimbrel, it means we don't keep someone else or sign someone else.

 

I realize this is all conjecture, but I would not want a large percent of our payroll budget going to a closer who is likely to begin declining in a year or two.

 

I agree, especially if the contract required to get a Kimbrel is longer than 3 years.

[jacksonianmarch]

Chap got a 5 year deal albeit he was 2 years younger than Kimberly at the time he signed his deal (Chap is in fact three months older than Craig). I know Davis got a higher AAV over three seasons, but he turned 33 this year. My guess on Kimbrel is 5 yrs $100 mil on the nose

[cp176]

No one here seems to be disagreeing that signing Kimbrel for more than 3 years would be a good deal. He turned 30 years old in May and saying that he is close to a decline is an assumption based on statistics saying that it just seems to happen. That is logical but every situation is different. He could very well pitch well for a number of years. Throwing relievers out there and hoping that one will emerge has been tried. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. He is the best we got for sure coming out of that pen. He has 42 saves this season - 42. He may become too expensive to keep but saying that overpaying for his talent will be devastating to our franchise imo is just silly. He is and has proven to be too valuable to just allow him to walk without a major effort to keep him. A big market team isn't likely to start going small all of a sudden.