The 2018 Bullpen Season Thread

[Larry Cook]

You're probably right, but I've always liked Sale and wanted him on the Sox.

 

After all, we're talking about...

 

Chris Freakin' Sale!

 

If the season were 4 months long, he would be the greatest pitcher on the planet.

 

But his body is struggling to last 200 innings per season.

[notin]

If the season were 4 months long, he would be the greatest pitcher on the planet.

 

But his body is struggling to last 200 innings per season.

 

And that may not be a skill the Sox should be dropping $30mill per season on from, say, ages 31 through 36...

[moonslav59]

If the season were 4 months long, he would be the greatest pitcher on the planet.

 

But his body is struggling to last 200 innings per season.

 

It's my belief he'd be near 200 by the end of the season had we been 1 GB the WC all summer.

 

He led the league in IP last year and had more the year before.

 

I agree, he has seasonal performance longevity issues as his performance level has dropped just about every season of his career come Aug/Sep.

 

I wouldn't be surprised, if we let him walk, but I'd have rather taken a big money risk on Sale than Price. The problem is, we can't take back the Price signing, so the choice might already have been made.

 

It will be damn hard replacing Sale with the $13.5M he'll get his last year with us (2019).

[redsoxrules]

Theres no way the sox retain Sale. Unless he takes a pay cut. You have to remember that they need to prepare to sign mookie, bogey and beni long term. Iand they also need to resign kimbrel. This bullpen stinks enough as it is so need that guy

[redsoxrules]

Well actually they might be able to if want to let porcello walk after his deal is up. I'd be fine by that. Hes too inconsistent to make over 20 Mil a year

[Bellhorn04]

If I'm not mistaken, after Foulke went south after 2004, Theo commented that signing Foulke to what was then a big deal was not a good idea.

 

When he was with the Sox, Theo was very much in agreement with the 'collect as many bodies as you can and see what sticks' philosophy. I haven't followed all of his BP moves that closely since he went to the Cubs, but I know that he has signed acquired some big names. Maybe he's losing his touch in his old age. LOL

 

Theo had Papelbon from 2006 to 2011. He didn't have to do any throwing stuff at the wall to find his closer.

[Bellhorn04]

If I'm not mistaken, after Foulke went south after 2004, Theo commented that signing Foulke to what was then a big deal was not a good idea.

 

Kimmi, another thing is that if Theo said that I find it very surprising in some respects.

 

Foulke was absolutely instrumental in winning it all in 2004. And he pretty much sacrificed his arm that postseason.

 

Also, we saw what Theo did in 2016, trading Gleyber Torres strictly to have Chapman for one postseason.

[Kimmi]

You're probably right, but I've always liked Sale and wanted him on the Sox.

 

After all, we're talking about...

 

Chris Freakin' Sale!

 

I think we'd all love to keep Sale.

 

The question is, at what cost?

 

Unfortunately, he's likely to command a contract that no team should really be entertaining.

[Kimmi]

Theo had Papelbon from 2006 to 2011. He didn't have to do any throwing stuff at the wall to find his closer.

 

That philosophy is in regards to building an entire pen, not just in terms of the closer.

 

But fair point about Papelbon.

 

Dombrowski needs to find us our next Papelbon.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, another thing is that if Theo said that I find it very surprising in some respects.

 

Foulke was absolutely instrumental in winning it all in 2004. And he pretty much sacrificed his arm that postseason.

 

Also, we saw what Theo did in 2016, trading Gleyber Torres strictly to have Chapman for one postseason.

 

I don't deny that Theo has made some big moves in order to get a closer. IMO, paying a lot for any relief pitcher is still a bad idea. There are better uses of those resources.

 

That said, if it brings you a title, it makes it all worth it. Theo is looking like a genius, which he is. But if the Cubs didn't win the WS that year, that move would look really bad.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't deny that Theo has made some big moves in order to get a closer. IMO, paying a lot for any relief pitcher is still a bad idea. There are better uses of those resources.

 

That said, if it brings you a title, it makes it all worth it. Theo is looking like a genius, which he is. But if the Cubs didn't win the WS that year, that move would look really bad.

 

But this is one of the things I like about Theo. He will make that big risky move sometimes. Sometimes it's not all about doing what's the most risk-averse. Sometimes you have to gamble.

 

IMHO...

[sk7326]

I don't deny that Theo has made some big moves in order to get a closer. IMO, paying a lot for any relief pitcher is still a bad idea. There are better uses of those resources.

 

That said, if it brings you a title, it makes it all worth it. Theo is looking like a genius, which he is. But if the Cubs didn't win the WS that year, that move would look really bad.

 

Yes and no - it was an overpay, but the Cubs system was deep and flags fly forever. At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them.

 

Foulke was also not just a closer - but arguably (with Rivera) the best reliever in baseball those years previous. Theo went very top shelf - with the sort of closer you could actually bring in at any time. Chapman was similarly top shelf. Even that crazy Game 7 when he gave up the tying homerun, he pulled things together to keep the game alive for the Cubs to eventually win.

[moonslav59]

At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them.

 

The "whole point?" If that was true, all prospects would be traded.

 

My guess is, most GMs view prospect chips more in the light of eventually filling a hole in their current team or near future team than as trading assets.

[sk7326]

At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them.

 

The "whole point?" If that was true, all prospects would be traded.

 

My guess is, most GMs view prospect chips more in the light of eventually filling a hole in their current team or near future team than as trading assets.

 

The entire purpose of your minor league is to service the major league team, full stop. That can mean as cost-controlled future talent. It can also mean stuff to trade for big league help. One goal is not more correct, or more noble than the other. It is all based on where the franchise is, both in terms of payroll and contention. These are not mutually exclusive aims.

 

If a team did not have near term World Series goals (with a reasonable likelihood of achieving them with a move or two), then you'd make different decisions. But if you are where the Cubs were in 2016, you owe all of your stakeholders your best chance to win the whole damn thing. This does not mean make an idiotic (Bagwell for Andersen) deal, but your priorities are different than the 2018 Orioles.

Edited September 15, 2018 by sk7326

[moonslav59]

The entire purpose of your minor league is to service the major league team, full stop. That can mean as cost-controlled future talent. It can also mean stuff to trade for big league help. One goal is not more correct, or more noble than the other. It is all based on where the franchise is, both in terms of payroll and contention. These are not mutually exclusive aims.

 

If a team did not have near term World Series goals (with a reasonable likelihood of achieving them with a move or two), then you'd make different decisions. But if you are where the Cubs were in 2016, you owe all of your stakeholders your best chance to win the whole damn thing. This does not mean make an idiotic (Bagwell for Andersen) deal, but your priorities are different than the 2018 Orioles.

 

I get that, but the "whole point" of prospect chips is NOT to trade them. Thank God we kept Betts, Bogey, Beni and Devers despite being in playoff contention in many of those seasons when trading them might have brought us instant gratification at the expense of being out of it this year.

[sk7326]

I get that, but the "whole point" of prospect chips is NOT to trade them. Thank God we kept Betts, Bogey, Beni and Devers despite being in playoff contention in many of those seasons when trading them might have brought us instant gratification at the expense of being out of it this year.

 

The teams where those sorts of trades would have been relevant were bad ... when Betts made his monumental leap, the Red Sox were a bad team. Benintendi was available specifically because the Red Sox were bad. The team was not a small number of moves away, so it's a moot discussion. The Red Sox traded talent for Kimbrel but it was blocked talent.

 

I am certainly not advocating for trading your future superstar tier of player for instant gratification. But the Cubs were filled to the rim with good talent, the players they dealt were blocked (you can argue choosing Addison Russell over Torres was a mistake, but they were right for making a choice). Nobody benefits (including the players themselves!) from the status quo there.

[Kimmi]

But this is one of the things I like about Theo. He will make that big risky move sometimes. Sometimes it's not all about doing what's the most risk-averse. Sometimes you have to gamble.

 

IMHO...

 

Fair enough. I do not disagree with that.

 

That said, I do think those types of moves should be the exception, not the norm.

[Kimmi]

Yes and no - it was an overpay, but the Cubs system was deep and flags fly forever. At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them.

 

Foulke was also not just a closer - but arguably (with Rivera) the best reliever in baseball those years previous. Theo went very top shelf - with the sort of closer you could actually bring in at any time. Chapman was similarly top shelf. Even that crazy Game 7 when he gave up the tying homerun, he pulled things together to keep the game alive for the Cubs to eventually win.

 

Again, I do not disagree. There's no way to know without the value of hindsight, but IMO, if a move results in a championship, then it makes the move well worth it.

 

I think that's there's some difference in adding someone like Chapman midseason versus an offseason move. In July, you identify what you perceive to be the team's weakness, or the piece that might get you over the hump, and you go for it. I was okay with the trade for Pomeranz, despite the cost in prospects.

 

JMO, but I'm not re-signing Kimbrel to a big contract.

[moonslav59]

The teams where those sorts of trades would have been relevant were bad ... when Betts made his monumental leap, the Red Sox were a bad team. Benintendi was available specifically because the Red Sox were bad. The team was not a small number of moves away, so it's a moot discussion. The Red Sox traded talent for Kimbrel but it was blocked talent.

 

I am certainly not advocating for trading your future superstar tier of player for instant gratification. But the Cubs were filled to the rim with good talent, the players they dealt were blocked (you can argue choosing Addison Russell over Torres was a mistake, but they were right for making a choice). Nobody benefits (including the players themselves!) from the status quo there.

 

Come on, we got Beni because we were bad, but we got good again while he was still a prospect. We did not trade him because we viewed him as a bigger asset to a team in need of a LF'er.

 

I remember people saying we should trade our top prospects for Hamels. I'm glad we didn't trade them all. That's my point. Keep some- trade some. Their purpose is not just for trading as you proposed.

 

[Kimmi]

Come on, we got Beni because we were bad, but we got good again while he was still a prospect. We did not trade him because we viewed him as a bigger asset to a team in need of a LF'er.

 

I remember people saying we should trade our top prospects for Hamels. I'm glad we didn't trade them all. That's my point. Keep some- trade some. Their purpose is not just for trading as you proposed.

 

 

Ideally, you have a revolving door of cost controlled players graduating to the major league level to replace those that become too expensive to re-sign. Fill the holes with trades or short term free agent signings, with perhaps the rare mega deal.

[moonslav59]

Ideally, you have a revolving door of cost controlled players graduating to the major league level to replace those that become too expensive to re-sign. Fill the holes with trades or short term free agent signings, with perhaps the rare mega deal.

 

Exactly. In no way is your farm system's only function is to provide trade chips.

 

In fact, ideally, that should be secondary to the idea that your farm provides your big club with cost-controlled talent on a consistent basis.

[a700hitter]

Exactly. In no way is your farm system's only function is to provide trade chips.

 

In fact, ideally, that should be secondary to the idea that your farm provides your big club with cost-controlled talent on a consistent basis.

The reality is that the value of most prospects is as trade chips and roster fillers at the MILB level.

[moonslav59]

The reality is that the value of most prospects is as trade chips and roster fillers at the MILB level.

 

We certainly got some nice returns (not named Thornburg) on many of our prospect trades, but where would we be without several years of relatively low-cost players like Betts, Beni, Bogey, JBJ and Devers?

 

I'm not arguing against trading top prospects. I've suggested hundreds of trades myself. My point was a counter to the claim this cliam...

 

"At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them..."

 

[dgalehouse]

The best thing to do with the prospects is ; keep the ones that you need and deal the rest to fill your other needs. The key is being able to tell the difference.

[sk7326]

Come on, we got Beni because we were bad, but we got good again while he was still a prospect. We did not trade him because we viewed him as a bigger asset to a team in need of a LF'er.

 

I remember people saying we should trade our top prospects for Hamels. I'm glad we didn't trade them all. That's my point. Keep some- trade some. Their purpose is not just for trading as you proposed.

 

 

Benintendi, Betts and Devers were identified as franchise caliber talent - and there were job openings - so there you go. Margot (for instance) was blocked and lacked the upside - so he became trade fodder. And remember, considering how crappy the life of a minor leaguer is (scandalously low pay in particular), this is for the best.

 

Dombrowski has done a great job here - been very aggressive with the guys he believes in and have moved other guys. One of the big failings of the past administration was not necessarily making those decisions so the organization had some direction. As I've noted before - while every team wants to be a scouting and development machine (and I desire that for the Red Sox of course), we are not the Oakland A's, and the franchise should not act like they are (and fortunately they are not), and the fans pay way too much money for that sort of rationalization. (whether that be rationalizing not signing a premium asset, or mainpulating service time with a guy who obviously should be here)

 

Now, the Red Sox have largely done the right thing organizationally and have benefitted from a rather amazing set of prospect graduations. The challenge is replacing them, but that would have been true no matter who the GM was.

[sk7326]

We certainly got some nice returns (not named Thornburg) on many of our prospect trades, but where would we be without several years of relatively low-cost players like Betts, Beni, Bogey, JBJ and Devers?

 

I'm not arguing against trading top prospects. I've suggested hundreds of trades myself. My point was a counter to the claim this cliam...

 

"At some point you have to cash in some chips - that's the whole point of having them..."

 

 

Nothing you have said counters that.

[Kimmi]

Exactly. In no way is your farm system's only function is to provide trade chips.

 

In fact, ideally, that should be secondary to the idea that your farm provides your big club with cost-controlled talent on a consistent basis.

 

I agree.

[moonslav59]

Nothing you have said counters that.

 

I give up. One post you say chips are only good for trading, and then another you talk of using the farm to plug holes.

[sk7326]

I give up. One post you say chips are only good for trading, and then another you talk of using the farm to plug holes.

 

No. I said the farm exists to service the major league club. And that means both aims - they are not mutually exclusive. Given where the Cubs were - the value of Gleyber Torres as a trade chip was more important than his value as a future cog. If they were where the Padres were, that would of course have been madness. And good teams (and in particular good teams with lots of revenue) have different decision sets than others.

 

Trading every prospect nailed down doesn't make sense - as you have rightly noted. But neither does hoarding them! For a contender, there are too many stakeholders - including the blocked prospect themselves - not to make a deal in that context.

[moonslav59]

No. I said the farm exists to service the major league club. And that means both aims - they are not mutually exclusive. Given where the Cubs were - the value of Gleyber Torres as a trade chip was more important than his value as a future cog. If they were where the Padres were, that would of course have been madness. And good teams (and in particular good teams with lots of revenue) have different decision sets than others.

 

Trading every prospect nailed down doesn't make sense - as you have rightly noted. But neither does hoarding them! For a contender, there are too many stakeholders - including the blocked prospect themselves - not to make a deal in that context.

 

I never disagreed with the point about "at some point you have to cash some in." I loved the Sale trade.

 

My counter was to the added point of "that's the whole point of having them."

 

If you said that's "one point of having them..." I'd have wholly agreed.