The 2018 Bullpen Season Thread

[moonslav59]

Betts is the clear #1, the rest are debatable to some degree or another. Now, as Kimmi notes - there is a walk away price for anybody. At the same time, I like good baseball players and the Red Sox certainly charge you and me enough money that we at least have a reason to demand that the team not skimp on good baseball players.

 

Yes, some but not all.

 

We will pick and choose, despite the fact that Henry does not have to.

[cp176]

Everybody of course has the "it doesn't make any sense to sign" price, but once again, when you have one apparently steady piece in your bullpen you make a reasonable effort to sign him. A few people have made a point of saying that the closer's role in general is over rated. It is a role that seems to be pretty important to all teams in this day and age. If it makes you feel better by saying that you think the role is over rated or possibly that this team would be just as successful without Kimbrel at the backend, good for you. It doesn't appear to be a thought that is shared by many others. I do get a little confused when people say that having Kimbrel out there has not been all the important to this team's success. Now understand this isn't comparing him to anybody else. Has nothing to do with who we could or could not sign if we did not sign him. Some people really don't feel that he has been fairly important to this team's success - really? It really isn't worth any more comments from me if anyone in fact feels this way. i don't understand that particular thinking at all. Mentally, when I eliminate Kimbrel and try to replace him with someone or any group that we currently have, I feel like throwing up. Put Kelly's head on Kimbrel's body and see how you feel.

[Bellhorn04]

Everybody of course has the "it doesn't make any sense to sign" price, but once again, when you have one apparently steady piece in your bullpen you make a reasonable effort to sign him. A few people have made a point of saying that the closer's role in general is over rated. It is a role that seems to be pretty important to all teams in this day and age. If it makes you feel better by saying that you think the role is over rated or possibly that this team would be just as successful without Kimbrel at the backend, good for you. It doesn't appear to be a thought that is shared by many others. I do get a little confused when people say that having Kimbrel out there has not been all the important to this team's success. Now understand this isn't comparing him to anybody else. Has nothing to do with who we could or could not sign if we did not sign him. Some people really don't feel that he has been fairly important to this team's success - really? It really isn't worth any more comments from me if anyone in fact feels this way. i don't understand that particular thinking at all. Mentally, when I eliminate Kimbrel and try to replace him with someone or any group that we currently have, I feel like throwing up. Put Kelly's head on Kimbrel's body and see how you feel.

 

I see both sides.

 

I agree with those who say a good closer is important.

 

I agree with those who say $100 mill is too much for CK.

 

The real question, more than likely, is how DD is going to replace him.

[notin]

Everybody of course has the "it doesn't make any sense to sign" price, but once again, when you have one apparently steady piece in your bullpen you make a reasonable effort to sign him. A few people have made a point of saying that the closer's role in general is over rated. It is a role that seems to be pretty important to all teams in this day and age. If it makes you feel better by saying that you think the role is over rated or possibly that this team would be just as successful without Kimbrel at the backend, good for you. It doesn't appear to be a thought that is shared by many others. I do get a little confused when people say that having Kimbrel out there has not been all the important to this team's success. Now understand this isn't comparing him to anybody else. Has nothing to do with who we could or could not sign if we did not sign him. Some people really don't feel that he has been fairly important to this team's success - really? It really isn't worth any more comments from me if anyone in fact feels this way. i don't understand that particular thinking at all. Mentally, when I eliminate Kimbrel and try to replace him with someone or any group that we currently have, I feel like throwing up. Put Kelly's head on Kimbrel's body and see how you feel.

 

I would say the closer role is overrated because it has become a ninth inning specialist. It's nothing about Kimbrel, who is a terrific pitcher. But the way this role has evolved has made it into an overpriced specialisy. (It is odd how baseball economics have evolved from using specialty players in order to save money into watching them get overpaid for their specialization.)

 

The game is simply not on the line in every ninth inning. Plenty of times, far more critical situaions happen earlier that that. We've all seen too many games when other bullpen pitchers come in to face the 4-5-6 hitters with men on base in a close game in the eighth inning only to see the closer than get rolled out in the ninth to face the 7-8-9 hitters. To me, this is a waste of having a pitcher like Kimbrel.

 

Kimbrel pitched 61 IP this year, but 53.1 of them were in the ninth inning. I'm not going to go through every game log, but if there is an even distribution, then roughly 44% of those games, he started the inning off with a hitter batting 6 through 9. These are the easier outs in every lineup. If closers were still used like they were back in the days og Gossage, Sutter and Fingers, that would be different. Those guys were not ninth inning specialists, and often pitched 2 or 3 innings in many appearances. They rarely if ever had games where they faced the bottom of the order and no one else.

 

Also, as most managers manage towards to save, the closer is used for about any lead of three runs or less. Using your best reliever with a one run lead certainly seems wise. But with a 3-run lead? Sometimes that is overkill, espeially for those 3-run leads against the bottom of the order. I really see no point in saving the best reliever to face the 7-8-9 hitters with the task of getting 3 outs before giving up 3 runs.

 

I'd rather see Kimbrel (or any closer) used when the game is actually on the line. This does mean coming in with men on base in the seventh or eigthth innings. While you might not like the idea of using Kelly in the ninth, why do you find the idea of Kelly facing the heart of the order with men on base in the eighth inning acceptable? Or Hembree or Barnes?

 

The problem with using the closer when the game is actually on the line is many pitchers and their agents on't like it. Saves have become a bargaining tool for agents and being a closer does mean more years and money when negotiation time comes. Remember when the Andrew Miller contract ($8mill per for a middle reliever) sent shock waves through the industry? That was closer money at the time. While Miller was typically facing those tough pre-ninth situations, most teams did not want to see non-closing relievers start to get paid like closers. And after that deal, we alsos saw a severe rise in what closers were paid, despite not always handling to toughest situations.

 

The role of closer as it is used today is certainly overrated. I'd rather have a pitcher who can put out the tough fires than an overpaid ninth inning specialist. But it is very tough to find an Andrew Miller type who wants to take on that role, and the reason always boils down to financial ones.

 

And if I asked you hypothetically, how much worse would the Sox be if, say, Kelly was closing, what would you answer? Certainly the Sox wouldn't still be fighting with the Yankees for the division. Maybe home field would still be in doubt. Maybe. I think that was the original point. However many games Kelly would have cost the Sox by being a ninth inning specialist, that number is probably less than the number he did cost the Sox by pitching in crucial situations in the seventh and eighth innings.

 

I like the idea of having a pitcher as good as Kimbrel in the bullpen, but if he is only going to pitch the ninth inning regardless of the situation, it is overkill. Because saving your best reliever to protect a 3 run lead for one inning against the 7-8-9 hitters is not a good way to use him...

Edited September 27, 2018 by notin

[notin]

I see both sides.

 

I agree with those who say a good closer is important.

 

I agree with those who say $100 mill is too much for CK.

 

The real question, more than likely, is how DD is going to replace him.

 

$100 mill is too much, but my philoshophy is typically I'm OK with the high salary if we can cut back on the years. If the Sox re-signed Kimbrel for 3 years / $65mill, I'd greatly prefer that contract to 5 years / $100mill.

 

But as this is Kimbrel's big chance, I have to think maximizing the years is important to him...

[moonslav59]

$100 mill is too much, but my philoshophy is typically I'm OK with the high salary if we can cut back on the years. If the Sox re-signed Kimbrel for 3 years / $65mill, I'd greatly prefer that contract to 5 years / $100mill.

 

But as this is Kimbrel's big chance, I have to think maximizing the years is important to him...

 

Yes. It's Kimbrel's "philosophy" that matters most, and he's going to want large & long.

[notin]

Yes. It's Kimbrel's "philosophy" that matters most, and he's going to want large & long.

 

Exactly. He didn't hire an agent to take a discount to stay in Boston...

[cp176]

I would say the closer role is overrated because it has become a ninth inning specialist. It's nothing about Kimbrel, who is a terrific pitcher. But the way this role has evolved has made it into an overpriced specialisy. (It is odd how baseball economics have evolved from using specialty players in order to save money into watching them get overpaid for their specialization.)

 

The game is simply not on the line in every ninth inning. Plenty of times, far more critical situaions happen earlier that that. We've all seen too many games when other bullpen pitchers come in to face the 4-5-6 hitters with men on base in a close game in the eighth inning only to see the closer than get rolled out in the ninth to face the 7-8-9 hitters. To me, this is a waste of having a pitcher like Kimbrel.

 

Kimbrel pitched 61 IP this year, but 53.1 of them were in the ninth inning. I'm not going to go through every game log, but if there is an even distribution, then roughly 44% of those games, he started the inning off with a hitter batting 6 through 9. These are the easier outs in every lineup. If closers were still used like they were back in the days og Gossage, Sutter and Fingers, that would be different. Those guys were not ninth inning specialists, and often pitched 2 or 3 innings in many appearances. They rarely if ever had games where they faced the bottom of the order and no one else.

 

Also, as most managers manage towards to save, the closer is used for about any lead of three runs or less. Using your best reliever with a one run lead certainly seems wise. But with a 3-run lead? Sometimes that is overkill, espeially for those 3-run leads against the bottom of the order. I really see no point in saving the best reliever to face the 7-8-9 hitters with the task of getting 3 outs before giving up 3 runs.

 

I'd rather see Kimbrel (or any closer) used when the game is actually on the line. This does mean coming in with men on base in the seventh or eigthth innings. While you might not like the idea of using Kelly in the ninth, why do you find the idea of Kelly facing the heart of the order with men on base in the eighth inning acceptable? Or Hembree or Barnes?

 

The problem with using the closer when the game is actually on the line is many pitchers and their agents on't like it. Saves have become a bargaining tool for agents and being a closer does mean more years and money when negotiation time comes. Remember when the Andrew Miller contract ($8mill per for a middle reliever) sent shock waves through the industry? That was closer money at the time. While Miller was typically facing those tough pre-ninth situations, most teams did not want to see non-closing relievers start to get paid like closers. And after that deal, we alsos saw a severe rise in what closers were paid, despite not always handling to toughest situations.

 

The role of closer as it is used today is certainly overrated. I'd rather have a pitcher who can put out the tough fires than an overpaid ninth inning specialist. But it is very tough to find an Andrew Miller type who wants to take on that role, and the reason always boils down to financial ones.

 

And if I asked you hypothetically, how much worse would the Sox be if, say, Kelly was closing, what would you answer? Certainly the Sox wouldn't still be fighting with the Yankees for the division. Maybe home field would still be in doubt. Maybe. I think that was the original point. However many games Kelly would have cost the Sox by being a ninth inning specialist, that number is probably less than the number he did cost the Sox by pitching in crucial situations in the seventh and eighth innings.

 

I like the idea of having a pitcher as good as Kimbrel in the bullpen, but if he is only going to pitch the ninth inning regardless of the situation, it is overkill. Because saving your best reliever to protect a 3 run lead for one inning against the 7-8-9 hitters is not a good way to use him...

 

Ok - I think that I have it now. You stated some good and strong opinions here. Some of which I agree with with respect to the role of relievers in general. They are opinions that at this time don't seem to be accepted by the Red Sox though. As long as the Red Sox believe that the role of a closer in general is not going to change, then having a closer like Kimbrel is very important. Until the Sox change their concept of how to use relief pitchers (if they ever do), having a guy like Kimbrel out there is extremely valuable. For the people who think that replacing him with someone as good is no big deal, sorry can't agree. People can beat around how they think JH should spend his money but thinking that he would just let Kimbrel walk easily and try to replace him by others hoping that someone will get the job done eventually is likely not going fly.

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly. He didn't hire an agent to take a discount to stay in Boston...

 

Although some players with agents have taken alleged discounts over the years. Pedroia has an agent, for example.

 

The fact that you would rather have someone represent you than negotiate yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're after every last dollar.

 

Which is not to say Kimbrel won't be going after every last dollar when the time comes.

[cp176]

Yes. It's Kimbrel's "philosophy" that matters most, and he's going to want large & long.

 

 

You seem to be questioning how JH is going to use his money going forward. That is ok for sure. My guess which is though that Kimbrel has no current "philosophy" He may want more than 3 years at 20 per. If he does, he probably will be walking away. No one knows what he will want, how many years he will seek, or even more realistically what he will take at this time.

[S5Dewey]

I would say the closer role is overrated because it has become a ninth inning specialist. It's nothing about Kimbrel, who is a terrific pitcher. But the way this role has evolved has made it into an overpriced specialisy. (It is odd how baseball economics have evolved from using specialty players in order to save money into watching them get overpaid for their specialization.)

 

The game is simply not on the line in every ninth inning. Plenty of times, far more critical situaions happen earlier that that. We've all seen too many games when other bullpen pitchers come in to face the 4-5-6 hitters with men on base in a close game in the eighth inning only to see the closer than get rolled out in the ninth to face the 7-8-9 hitters. To me, this is a waste of having a pitcher like Kimbrel.

 

Kimbrel pitched 61 IP this year, but 53.1 of them were in the ninth inning. I'm not going to go through every game log, but if there is an even distribution, then roughly 44% of those games, he started the inning off with a hitter batting 6 through 9. These are the easier outs in every lineup. If closers were still used like they were back in the days og Gossage, Sutter and Fingers, that would be different. Those guys were not ninth inning specialists, and often pitched 2 or 3 innings in many appearances. They rarely if ever had games where they faced the bottom of the order and no one else.

 

Also, as most managers manage towards to save, the closer is used for about any lead of three runs or less. Using your best reliever with a one run lead certainly seems wise. But with a 3-run lead? Sometimes that is overkill, espeially for those 3-run leads against the bottom of the order. I really see no point in saving the best reliever to face the 7-8-9 hitters with the task of getting 3 outs before giving up 3 runs.

 

I'd rather see Kimbrel (or any closer) used when the game is actually on the line. This does mean coming in with men on base in the seventh or eigthth innings. While you might not like the idea of using Kelly in the ninth, why do you find the idea of Kelly facing the heart of the order with men on base in the eighth inning acceptable? Or Hembree or Barnes?

 

The problem with using the closer when the game is actually on the line is many pitchers and their agents on't like it. Saves have become a bargaining tool for agents and being a closer does mean more years and money when negotiation time comes. Remember when the Andrew Miller contract ($8mill per for a middle reliever) sent shock waves through the industry? That was closer money at the time. While Miller was typically facing those tough pre-ninth situations, most teams did not want to see non-closing relievers start to get paid like closers. And after that deal, we alsos saw a severe rise in what closers were paid, despite not always handling to toughest situations.

 

The role of closer as it is used today is certainly overrated. I'd rather have a pitcher who can put out the tough fires than an overpaid ninth inning specialist. But it is very tough to find an Andrew Miller type who wants to take on that role, and the reason always boils down to financial ones.

 

And if I asked you hypothetically, how much worse would the Sox be if, say, Kelly was closing, what would you answer? Certainly the Sox wouldn't still be fighting with the Yankees for the division. Maybe home field would still be in doubt. Maybe. I think that was the original point. However many games Kelly would have cost the Sox by being a ninth inning specialist, that number is probably less than the number he did cost the Sox by pitching in crucial situations in the seventh and eighth innings.

 

I like the idea of having a pitcher as good as Kimbrel in the bullpen, but if he is only going to pitch the ninth inning regardless of the situation, it is overkill. Because saving your best reliever to protect a 3 run lead for one inning against the 7-8-9 hitters is not a good way to use him...

 

What you're saying in essence is what Kimmie and I have been saying all summer - that your best reliever shouldn't automatically be used in the 9th inning. He should be used in the highest leverage situation. If there is no high leverage situation earlier in the game then it's ok to use him in the 9th just so he can get the work. Using Kimbrel exclusively in the 9th isn't using him to the best advantage of the team. Except....

Kiimbrel seems to have trouble pitching in non-save situations. That's why IMO he's overpaid.

 

Somehow we've gotten to the point where our "closers" are almost guaranteed to start a clean inning. That's great for the closer. He gets to pad his stats in low leverage situations and turn it into a big payday but if you have a guy like Koji who can come in and 'shut the door' he's actually more valuable to the team than the guy who demands a clean inning. This is the guy who should be getting "closers" pay.

[notin]

What you're saying in essence is what Kimmie and I have been saying all summer - that your best reliever shouldn't automatically be used in the 9th inning. He should be used in the highest leverage situation. If there is no high leverage situation earlier in the game then it's ok to use him in the 9th just so he can get the work. Using Kimbrel exclusively in the 9th isn't using him to the best advantage of the team. Except....

Kiimbrel seems to have trouble pitching in non-save situations. That's why IMO he's overpaid.

 

Somehow we've gotten to the point where our "closers" are almost guaranteed to start a clean inning. That's great for the closer. He gets to pad his stats in low leverage situations and turn it into a big payday but if you have a guy like Koji who can come in and 'shut the door' he's actually more valuable to the team than the guy who demands a clean inning. This is the guy who should be getting "closers" pay.

 

And I've been saying since BDC.

 

I'd rather have a "high leverage specialist" than a ninth inning specialist.

 

As for the non-save situations, don't forget that the only difference between a hold and a save is if the game ends. Pitchers are credited with blown saves in the 7th and 8th innings every day, so Kimbrel's stats in non-save situations are irrelevant if he is in "hold situations", as those are also save situations...

Edited September 27, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

You seem to be questioning how JH is going to use his money going forward. That is ok for sure. My guess which is though that Kimbrel has no current "philosophy" He may want more than 3 years at 20 per. If he does, he probably will be walking away. No one knows what he will want, how many years he will seek, or even more realistically what he will take at this time.

 

I agree that nobody knows, but the vast majority of players reaching their first FA year go for the largest and longest deal they can find, unless they are coming off an injury or poor year, and they want a 1 year deal to reset their value.

[notin]

You seem to be questioning how JH is going to use his money going forward. That is ok for sure. My guess which is though that Kimbrel has no current "philosophy" He may want more than 3 years at 20 per. If he does, he probably will be walking away. No one knows what he will want, how many years he will seek, or even more realistically what he will take at this time.

 

We do know he has an agent, and his agent will want Kimbrel paid accordingly. That was what he was hired for in the first place,

 

And given the amount of money Wade Davis received and the eyars Chapman and Jansen received, a 5 year/$100mill contract is not a ridiculous prediction. In fact, both numbers might be light.

 

Any notion that Kimbrel - the active career save leader and active career fWAR leader - will take less to stay in Boston is a fan's pipe dream. It isn't going to happen. If I know where Kimbrel's career ranks in MLB history, certainly Kimbrel and his agent are aware as well. And while Kimbrel might - and probably will - say he'd like to finish his career in Boston, that doesn't mean he wants fewer years or less money from the Sox; that means he wants Boston to step up and meet his demands...

[notin]

I agree that nobody knows, but the vast majority of players reaching their first FA year go for the largest and longest deal they can find, unless they are coming off an injury or poor year, and they want a 1 year deal to reset their value.

 

And they want to reset their value so they can get the largest and longest deal thy can find.

 

People take new positions every day for financial and job security reasons. MLB players are no different in this regard...

[Bellhorn04]

And given the amount of money Wade Davis received and the eyars Chapman and Jansen received, a 5 year/$100mill contract is not a ridiculous prediction. In fact, both numbers might be light.

 

It's conceivable there might be a market correction with relievers this offseason.

 

It happened to big-ticket DH types the last 2 years with Encarnacion and JDM.

[cp176]

We do know he has an agent, and his agent will want Kimbrel paid accordingly. That was what he was hired for in the first place,

 

And given the amount of money Wade Davis received and the eyars Chapman and Jansen received, a 5 year/$100mill contract is not a ridiculous prediction. In fact, both numbers might be light.

 

Any notion that Kimbrel - the active career save leader and active career fWAR leader - will take less to stay in Boston is a fan's pipe dream. It isn't going to happen. If I know where Kimbrel's career ranks in MLB history, certainly Kimbrel and his agent are aware as well. And while Kimbrel might - and probably will - say he'd like to finish his career in Boston, that doesn't mean he wants fewer years or less money from the Sox; that means he wants Boston to step up and meet his demands...

 

I don't think anyone has suggested at all that Kimbrel might take less to say in Boston. i get each and of the points you make and it doesn't hurt at all for everyone to play the what might happen game. Fact remains that no one knows.

[cp176]

What you're saying in essence is what Kimmie and I have been saying all summer - that your best reliever shouldn't automatically be used in the 9th inning. He should be used in the highest leverage situation. If there is no high leverage situation earlier in the game then it's ok to use him in the 9th just so he can get the work. Using Kimbrel exclusively in the 9th isn't using him to the best advantage of the team. Except....

Kiimbrel seems to have trouble pitching in non-save situations. That's why IMO he's overpaid.

 

Somehow we've gotten to the point where our "closers" are almost guaranteed to start a clean inning. That's great for the closer. He gets to pad his stats in low leverage situations and turn it into a big payday but if you have a guy like Koji who can come in and 'shut the door' he's actually more valuable to the team than the guy who demands a clean inning. This is the guy who should be getting "closers" pay.

 

There probably are lots of people who feel this way me included. I'm fairly sure that every team in baseball with any type of closer has thought about this as well. Since most seem not to use this strategy, I guess it just isn't the direction they want to go in. They know more than I do for sure about how to best use a bullpen. Hey what do I know though, I still would have tried to get Betts to buy into possibly hitting third in the lineup.

[notin]

It's conceivable there might be a market correction with relievers this offseason.

 

It happened to big-ticket DH types the last 2 years with Encarnacion and JDM.

 

Possible, but some of that "correction" also might have been in anticipation of this particular market with the possiblities if Harper, Machado, Kershaw, Donaldson, etc all available. The Yankees and Dodgers basically sat out last off-season's free agency i an attempt to reset the luxury tax penalties...

[Kimmi]

You never wanted Sale in the first place.

 

Ha. Good point.

 

My dream, like Theo's, is to field an all home grown team.

[oldtimer]

Possible, but some of that "correction" also might have been in anticipation of this particular market with the possiblities if Harper, Machado, Kershaw, Donaldson, etc all available. The Yankees and Dodgers basically sat out last off-season's free agency i an attempt to reset the luxury tax penalties...

 

When we look at 2019, we have to look at our costs and to see how we can fit players into a reasonable budget.

 

I expect our core players (young and prime) will be Betts, Bogaerts, Beni, JBJ and Devers and three of those are in arb years.

 

In addition, we have older pro players who probably will be back. Those are JDM, Moreland, Pedroia, Holt, Leon and Valazquez. Maybe we move a catcher or Moreland, but right now those are our likely players.

 

Then we have some lower cost younger field players as possible. Swihart, Lin and possible Chavis and Dalbec coming up. Probably Travis will be gone and Hernandez, recovering from shouler surgery is unlikely to make the team.

 

Starting pitching looks like Price, Porcello, Sale, E-Rod, Wright and possibly Eovaldi.

 

FAs likely to be gone are Kinsler, Pearce, Kimbrel (too expensive to bring back), Pomeranz. Both Kellly and Eovaldi might be kept if we can reach reasonable contracts. He is looking like a 3rd or 4th starter, so won't come cheaply. Kelly still has velocity and might be worth $4 mil per year.

 

For RP's we might have Brazier, Barnes, Smith, Workman, Cuevas, Velazquez and Johnson. Don't see Thornburg, Hembree or Scott

 

Be interesting to work on this and see where it might lead.

 

 

I have all the contract figures but haven't attempted to add up the damage. We still have Pablo's contract overhanging for 1 more year so that will limit us going forward. Adding in $20 mil per year for Kimbrel might just break the bank.

[notin]

When we look at 2019, we have to look at our costs and to see how we can fit players into a reasonable budget.

 

I expect our core players (young and prime) will be Betts, Bogaerts, Beni, JBJ and Devers and three of those are in arb years.

 

In addition, we have older pro players who probably will be back. Those are JDM, Moreland, Pedroia, Holt, Leon and Valazquez. Maybe we move a catcher or Moreland, but right now those are our likely players.

 

Then we have some lower cost younger field players as possible. Swihart, Lin and possible Chavis and Dalbec coming up. Probably Travis will be gone and Hernandez, recovering from shouler surgery is unlikely to make the team.

 

Starting pitching looks like Price, Porcello, Sale, E-Rod, Wright and possibly Eovaldi.

 

FAs likely to be gone are Kinsler, Pearce, Kimbrel (too expensive to bring back), Pomeranz. Both Kellly and Eovaldi might be kept if we can reach reasonable contracts. He is looking like a 3rd or 4th starter, so won't come cheaply. Kelly still has velocity and might be worth $4 mil per year.

 

For RP's we might have Brazier, Barnes, Smith, Workman, Cuevas, Velazquez and Johnson. Don't see Thornburg, Hembree or Scott

 

Be interesting to work on this and see where it might lead.

 

 

I have all the contract figures but haven't attempted to add up the damage. We still have Pablo's contract overhanging for 1 more year so that will limit us going forward. Adding in $20 mil per year for Kimbrel might just break the bank.

 

 

Without doing all the math, which I will leav for moonslav, that's my basic line of thinking, too. I don't think Kimbrel needs to go because of his performance. I'll even overlook his mediocre second half. But going forward, I think he is simply going to be too big of a strain on a large but limited budget. And given the years he is likely to want, might not be as reliable as he has been for the duration...

[moonslav59]

Without doing all the math, which I will leav for moonslav, that's my basic line of thinking, too. I don't think Kimbrel needs to go because of his performance. I'll even overlook his mediocre second half. But going forward, I think he is simply going to be too big of a strain on a large but limited budget. And given the years he is likely to want, might not be as reliable as he has been for the duration...

 

Well said. Even if he remains a top 3 closer for maybe 4 of the 5 years he'll likely get, his cost will be crippling, unless Henry wants to straddle the $40M over line for a half a decade or longer.

 

Until I see that, I'm thinking we will try to go back to the luxury tax line at some point soon and maybe try to reset within a 2-3 year window.

[Bellhorn04]

Ha. Good point.

 

My dream, like Theo's, is to field an all home grown team.

 

It would seem that Theo woke up from that dream a long time ago.

[SoxnCycles]

It would seem that Theo woke up from that dream a long time ago.

 

Theo obviously doesn't have Kimmi's tenacity.

[Larry Cook]

We give Kimbrel the qualifying offer and let Theo sign him. Instead we sign Herrera and Ottavino.

 

Pomeranz gets signed by the Yankees and Kelly learns to speak Japanese.

 

Take some of our savings and extend bogey.

 

Perfect offseason!

[vegasbob]

Let's allow the short or long post season play out to see who performs and who doesn't, then evaluate the payroll. Anything less than a WS appearance will be seen as a failure and could influence JH's checkbook availability. If the Sox drop early again in the ALDS, the pressure will be on DD to remake the pitching staff some how or other. If they win the WS, all pressure is off and you can let guys like Kimbrel take his best offer and move on.

My theory is that if I can't win with these guys, then I need different guys. The current BP with its crowd of medium level pitchers does make for some trade possibilities. Keep in mind of the current 19 active pitchers on the 40 man roster , the Sox will open 2019 with only 13 pitching for them.

[notin]

My theory is that if I can't win with these guys, then I need different guys. The current BP with its crowd of medium level pitchers does make for some trade possibilities.

 

There is a big difference between “can’t win” and “didn’t win.” If DD goes out rebuilding a team that won 107 games, he will learn the obvious - that it’s much easier to make the team worse than better.

 

Tweak where needed. Keep the core intact...

[S5Dewey]

My theory is that if I can't win with these guys, then I need different guys. The current BP with its crowd of medium level pitchers does make for some trade possibilities. Keep in mind of the current 19 active pitchers on the 40 man roster , the Sox will open 2019 with only 13 pitching for them.

That would seem to me like a MAJOR overreaction. I think we've decided amongst us that the playoffs are a crap shoot. I don't see any need for a big overhaul if we don't win it all. Just a few tweaks. Probably expensive tweaks, but tweaks.

[moonslav59]

Even if we get blown out early, I seriously doubt we do anything wild. Our window goes through 2019 and maybe 2020, depending on Henry's willingness to spend, so he's not going to allow DD to blow it all up or do anything major, in terms of subtracting players that under perform in the playoffs.