And the off season begins (2018-19)

[notin]

Not sure if this has been discussed on here yet but.. David Robertson is available and wants to play in and around the New England area.

The Red Sox should kick the tires on this at the very least.

 

There are numerous free agent closers available and DD will look at all of them plus other opportunities...

[oldtimer]

Not sure if this has been discussed on here yet but.. David Robertson is available and wants to play in and around the New England area.

The Red Sox should kick the tires on this at the very least.

 

I would look closely at Robertson as he would add quality as at least a setup man role.

[moonslav59]

I'm thinking Familia or Ottavino might be better fits.

[Dojji]

I'm thinking Familia or Ottavino might be better fits.

 

You don't mean Jeurys Familia do you? As in 2015 World Series Jeurys Familia?

 

Because as ideas go, that one's right up there with uranium flavored ice cream.

 

Moonslav, if you buy a discount closer, then you get a discount closer, which is fine in the regular season, and then in tight games in the World Series, you have a discount closer, which is not fine at all.

 

Yes Kimbrel had a bad stretch in the playoffs and gave up some walks and hits. A discount closer in the same situation gives up leads and wins. NO thank you.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dojji

[Dojji]

There's a cycle I've seen already several times in my years as a baseball fan.

 

The cycle goes as follows:

 

We have a good closer

We take good closing for granted

We start to assume that any random schmuck can close

So we get any random schmuck to close

And we realize any random schmuck can NOT close. This can take a few years if the GM is particularly stubborn about it

And then we spend years trying to find a good closer and not being able to

 

And then we eventually get lucky and manage to acquire a good closer, often very expensively.

 

And then we have a good closer.

 

Rinse, repeat.

 

So can I just take a second and argue in favor of actually being smarter than the average banana and NOT repeating this cycle over and over again? Or at least keeping the part where we stupidly underestimate the value of a strong back end of the bullpen to a minimum?

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dojji

[notin]

You don't mean Jeurys Familia do you? As in 2015 World Series Jeurys Familia?

 

Because as ideas go, that one's right up there with uranium flavored ice cream.

 

Moonslav, if you buy a discount closer, then you get a discount closer, which is fine in the regular season, and then in tight games in the World Series, you have a discount closer, which is not fine at all.

 

Yes Kimbrel had a bad stretch in the playoffs and gave up some walks and hits. A discount closer in the same situation gives up leads and wins. NO thank you.

 

 

So his 0.600 WHIP and 1 ER in the World Series 4 years ago is a disqualifier?

[moonslav59]

You don't mean Jeurys Familia do you? As in 2015 World Series Jeurys Familia?

 

Because as ideas go, that one's right up there with uranium flavored ice cream.

 

Moonslav, if you buy a discount closer, then you get a discount closer, which is fine in the regular season, and then in tight games in the World Series, you have a discount closer, which is not fine at all.

 

Yes Kimbrel had a bad stretch in the playoffs and gave up some walks and hits. A discount closer in the same situation gives up leads and wins. NO thank you.

 

Familia is a good pitcher.

 

If Henry is is going to spend $250M this year and into the future, then sure, sign Kimbrel & Eovaldi. Hell, why stop there? Let's sign Harper and trade JBJ for another pitcher!

 

We aren't signing Kimbrel and Eovaldi, so we better look at other options, lesser or "discount" out of necessity.

[Dojji]

So his 0.600 WHIP and 1 ER in the World Series 4 years ago is a disqualifier?

 

His 4 blown saves in the World Series clearly do. The man could not get it done when it mattered most.

 

I will concede though that he was sabotaged by one of the most pathetic displays of infield defense I've ever seen, but he didn't help himself out either.

 

I mean, if this was an ordinary year, I'd say whatever, you guys are sufficiently determined to learn this lesson the hard way, again, for like the 3rd time since 2001, then hey, go nuts. But I thought this year was about having a great chance to go back to back. Cheaping out on the back end of the bullpen isn't going to get us there.

 

This is kind of a golden opportunity you're squandering here by caring more about baseball politics than putting the best possible team on the field. So yeah, I feel like this matters and don't think that deliberately accepting the second best closer is a strong move, especially in a position as fundamentally short-term as closing.

[moonslav59]

There's a cycle I've seen already several times in my years as a baseball fan.

 

The cycle goes as follows:

 

We have a good closer

We take good closing for granted

We start to assume that any random schmuck can close

So we get any random schmuck to close

And we realize any random schmuck can NOT close. This can take a few years if the GM is particularly stubborn about it

And then we spend years trying to find a good closer and not being able to

 

And then we eventually get lucky and manage to acquire a good closer, often very expensively.

 

And then we have a good closer.

 

Rinse, repeat.

 

So can I just take a second and argue in favor of actually being smarter than the average banana and NOT repeating this cycle over and over again? Or at least keeping the part where we stupidly underestimate the value of a strong back end of the bullpen to a minimum?

 

Foulke gave us one great year, then he sucked.

 

Papelbon was a converted starter that worked like charm.

 

Uehara was signed as a set guy.

 

Kimbrel cost 4 prospects and a hefty salary (at the time).

 

How do you "rinse and repeat" that?

 

What's your plan?

[moonslav59]

His 4 blown saves in the World Series clearly do. The man could not get it done when it mattered most.

 

I will concede though that he was sabotaged by one of the most pathetic displays of infield defense I've ever seen, but he didn't help himself out either.

 

I mean, if this was an ordinary year, I'd say whatever, you guys are sufficiently determined to learn this lesson the hard way, again, for like the 3rd time since 2001, then hey, go nuts. But I thought this year was about having a great chance to go back to back. Cheaping out on the back end of the bullpen isn't going to get us there.

 

This is kind of a golden opportunity you're squandering here by caring more about baseball politics than putting the best possible team on the field. So yeah, I feel like this matters and don't think that deliberately accepting the second best closer is a strong move, especially in a position as fundamentally short-term as closing.

 

Many felt like Bailey or Hanrahan was the answer. It turned out to be Uehara. Was that "going cheap?"

[Dojji]

Foulke gave us one great year, then he sucked.

 

Papelbon was a converted starter that worked like charm.

 

Uehara was signed as a set guy.

 

Kimbrel cost 4 prospects and a hefty salary (at the time).

 

How do you "rinse and repeat" that?

 

What's your plan?

 

OK, you want my plan?

 

We have no direct way to replace Kimbrel right now. It's not rocket science to say, OK, in that circumstance we shouldn't deliberately create a hole in our roster for no actual reason. If Kimbrel's agreeable to come back for a reasonable price, bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line.

 

This isn't like many of our closer controversy years. We have the choice to avoid the controversy altogether. We don't HAVE to have a closer controversy this year. We CAN keep our closer. And that means that if we have a closer controversy this year it's because we chose to have one! And the history of previous "gap years" between closers suggests that that is a terrible, terrible thing to decide to do when you don't have to, especially when you have every chance to win the World Series.

 

We have both the money to pay and the playoff window to justify paying it. there is absolutely no need whatsoever to deliberately create a hole in our roster for no other reason than a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy.

[moonslav59]

OK, you want my plan?

 

We have no direct way to replace Kimbrel right now. It's not rocket science to say, OK, in that circumstance we shouldn't deliberately create a hole in our roster for no actual reason. If Kimbrel's agreeable to come back for a reasonable price, bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line.

 

This isn't like many of our closer controversy years. We have the choice to avoid the controversy altogether. We don't HAVE to have a closer controversy this year. We CAN keep our closer. And that means that if we have a closer controversy this year it's because we chose to have one! And the history of previous "gap years" between closers suggests that that is a terrible, terrible thing to decide to do when you don't have to, especially when you have every chance to win the World Series.

 

We have both the money to pay and the playoff window to justify paying it. there is absolutely no need whatsoever to deliberately create a hole in our roster for no other reason than a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy.

 

1. "Reasonable cost" is likely $18M x 5 years. We can afford that this year, but forget about Eovaldi, then. The real problem comes when we let Bogey or betts go, because we are paying Kimbrel.

2. Kimbrel is not a sure bet closer going forward, especially with a 4-5 year contract. Foulke gave us one year and then aged out (injury).

3. Yes, it's choice, but it is an either or choice that is no as simple as one isolated decision.

 

We do have an ABSOLUTE NEED to create a hole somewhere, if not this year, then more holes for later.

[notin]

His 4 blown saves in the World Series clearly do. The man could not get it done when it mattered most.

 

I will concede though that he was sabotaged by one of the most pathetic displays of infield defense I've ever seen, but he didn't help himself out either.

 

I mean, if this was an ordinary year, I'd say whatever, you guys are sufficiently determined to learn this lesson the hard way, again, for like the 3rd time since 2001, then hey, go nuts. But I thought this year was about having a great chance to go back to back. Cheaping out on the back end of the bullpen isn't going to get us there.

 

This is kind of a golden opportunity you're squandering here by caring more about baseball politics than putting the best possible team on the field. So yeah, I feel like this matters and don't think that deliberately accepting the second best closer is a strong move, especially in a position as fundamentally short-term as closing.

 

3 blown saves and as you said, he was hurt by his defense.

 

And in another of those blown saves, he faced 3 hitters and induced 3 groundouts. Is that blown save really his fault?

[notin]

OK, you want my plan?

 

We have no direct way to replace Kimbrel right now. It's not rocket science to say, OK, in that circumstance we shouldn't deliberately create a hole in our roster for no actual reason. If Kimbrel's agreeable to come back for a reasonable price, bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line.

 

This isn't like many of our closer controversy years. We have the choice to avoid the controversy altogether. We don't HAVE to have a closer controversy this year. We CAN keep our closer. And that means that if we have a closer controversy this year it's because we chose to have one! And the history of previous "gap years" between closers suggests that that is a terrible, terrible thing to decide to do when you don't have to, especially when you have every chance to win the World Series.

 

We have both the money to pay and the playoff window to justify paying it. there is absolutely no need whatsoever to deliberately create a hole in our roster for no other reason than a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy.

 

 

It’s not a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy as much as it is a strong belief that Henry isn’t going to ignore economic realities, which he has shown in the very recent past he does not like to do. Not to mention the revised history that the Sox have ever gone into a season thinking “any schmuck can close” and been proven wrong. (The 2003 closer-by-committee experiment actually provided good results in ninth inning situations with only 3 lost leads in the ninth in a 54 game stretch, resulting in 2 losses).

 

Bringing Kimbrel back is extremely likely to put a hole in the rotation, one only you think can be filled by Brian Johnson.

 

The Sox seem to be prioritizing the rotation, and specifically Eovaldi. This very likely means they don’t want to pay Kimbrel...

[moonslav59]

Sox recent payrolls

 

$156M 2014

$184M 2015

$198M 2016

$197M 2017

$234M 2018

 

I may be wrong, but I see 2018 as an outlier and not as a continuing trend to blow past the max penalty line and stay there for the remainder of a 4-5 year Kimbrel contract.

[moonslav59]

It’s not a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy as much as it is a strong belief that Henry isn’t going to ignore economic realities, which he has shown in the very recent past he does not like to do. Not to mention the revised history that the Sox have ever gone into a season thinking “any schmuck can close” and been proven wrong. (The 2003 closer-by-committee experiment actually provided good results in ninth inning situations with only 3 lost leads in the ninth in a 54 game stretch, resulting in 2 losses).

 

The 2013 season turned into a closer by committee out of injuries, and we all know how that one ended up.

 

Hanrahan got injured early.

 

Bailey sucked and got hurt.

 

Tazawa got 8 save opporunities.

 

There was talk of making Aceves the closer, but he sucked, too.

 

Uehara became perhaps the best closer we ever had for a year or two.

[sk7326]

I think it makes more sense to sign 2-3 relievers for the cost of a single Kimbrel. Between Herrera, Familia etc, there is a useful closer in there somewhere.

 

The problem is that Kimbrel has shown no real sign of being a rellef ace sort - not with that walk rate.

[sk7326]

OK, you want my plan?

 

We have no direct way to replace Kimbrel right now. It's not rocket science to say, OK, in that circumstance we shouldn't deliberately create a hole in our roster for no actual reason. If Kimbrel's agreeable to come back for a reasonable price, bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line.

 

This isn't like many of our closer controversy years. We have the choice to avoid the controversy altogether. We don't HAVE to have a closer controversy this year. We CAN keep our closer. And that means that if we have a closer controversy this year it's because we chose to have one! And the history of previous "gap years" between closers suggests that that is a terrible, terrible thing to decide to do when you don't have to, especially when you have every chance to win the World Series.

 

We have both the money to pay and the playoff window to justify paying it. there is absolutely no need whatsoever to deliberately create a hole in our roster for no other reason than a slavish devotion to Jamesian philosophy.

 

Here is the thing - if you don't have a reliever who can do what, say Rivera did throughout his career or Foulke did in 2004, it is a VERY highly substitutable position. The strategy of throwing tons of bodies at it was sound. Hell, for as bad as 2003 was, after churning through option after option - the bullpen was really good at the end of the season.

[oldtimer]

1. "Reasonable cost" is likely $18M x 5 years. We can afford that this year, but forget about Eovaldi, then. The real problem comes when we let Bogey or betts go, because we are paying Kimbrel.

2. Kimbrel is not a sure bet closer going forward, especially with a 4-5 year contract. Foulke gave us one year and then aged out (injury).

3. Yes, it's choice, but it is an either or choice that is no as simple as one isolated decision.

 

We do have an ABSOLUTE NEED to create a hole somewhere, if not this year, then more holes for later.

 

Kimbrel will no doubt get a multi year (4 or 5) contract paying an AAV of $18 mil as you say. Competing at that level would indeed cripple any flexibility the Sox have. The decision on Kimbrel will have an impact on who we can keep and whether we can compete in the Eovaldi marketplace. I trust DD to weigh the alternatives and make the best choice go going forward.

[Dojji]

Here is the thing - if you don't have a reliever who can do what, say Rivera did throughout his career or Foulke did in 2004, it is a VERY highly substitutable position.

 

Replacing any position has costs in time, money and talent that aren't necessary if you can afford to bring back your guy.

 

Furthermore replacing a closer is not all that easy and replacing any MLB player or role is susceptable to setbacks and mistakes that can torpedo whole seasons and drive the cost yet higher.

 

Everyone here has seem failed closers. Everyone here has seen both professional closers fail, and people slotted to move up into the closer's role not get it done. There is both a material and opportunity cost in attempting to replace a closer, just like with any other baseball role, and one o those risks is the potential need to do so multiple times if the first guy fails. Incurring those costs and risks when you don't have to is usually foolish.

 

You guys talk so much about the cost of paying our closer... I wish you'd give at least some thought to the potential costs associated with NOT doing so.

[kenmeister]

Here is the thing - if you don't have a reliever who can do what, say Rivera did throughout his career or Foulke did in 2004, it is a VERY highly substitutable position. The strategy of throwing tons of bodies at it was sound. Hell, for as bad as 2003 was, after churning through option after option - the bullpen was really good at the end of the season.

 

I will never, ever, forget Mike Timlin and Scott Williamson waiting in the pen and watching a tired Pedro give up the lead in the 8th.

 

Anyway, my current thought is sign Andrew Miller and Joe Kelly, and have Miller, Barnes, Kelly and Brasier compete for closer in spring training.

[moonslav59]

Replacing any position has costs in time, money and talent that aren't necessary if you can afford to bring back your guy.

 

Furthermore replacing a closer is not all that easy and replacing any MLB player or role is susceptable to setbacks and mistakes that can torpedo whole seasons and drive the cost yet higher.

 

Everyone here has seem failed closers. Everyone here has seen both professional closers fail, and people slotted to move up into the closer's role not get it done. There is both a material and opportunity cost in attempting to replace a closer, just like with any other baseball role, and one o those risks is the potential need to do so multiple times if the first guy fails. Incurring those costs and risks when you don't have to is usually foolish.

 

You guys talk so much about the cost of paying our closer... I wish you'd give at least some thought to the potential costs associated with NOT doing so.

 

What makes you think we don't think about a drop off in our closer position?

 

I do.

 

I also know I was scared shitless the last few times Kimbrel came into a game.

[dgalehouse]

I think it makes more sense to sign 2-3 relievers for the cost of a single Kimbrel. Between Herrera, Familia etc, there is a useful closer in there somewhere.

 

The problem is that Kimbrel has shown no real sign of being a rellef ace sort - not with that walk rate.

 

I think it is perfectly clear that the Sox have reached the limit with their budget. Kimbrel will be too expensive to sign, so we do need to find a dependable replacement. No argument there. However , your statement that Kimbrel has shown no sign of being a relief ace is beyond my comprehension. He has been in MLB for nine years and has been an all star in seven of them. He had 42 saves last year and 333 career saves. He has a career ERA of 1.91 . A career WHIP of 0.9 . How many relief pitchers in history have those kind of accomplishments ? He is clearly a relief ace and maybe a future Hall of Famer .

Edited November 27, 2018 by dgalehouse

[notin]

 

You guys talk so much about the cost of paying our closer... I wish you'd give at least some thought to the potential costs associated with NOT doing so.

 

Well, the “not paying” part is really our interpretation of how this off-season is going to go.

 

It doesn’t look like Henry is going to have an unlimited budget and it does look like Dombrowski is going to prioritize Eovaldi. I’ve always figured Eovaldi was Plan A and Kimbrel is Plan B, but it doesn’t look like both plans can happen simultaneously for purely financial reasons.

 

That said, if we’re going to determine the cost of not having a closer, these rudimentary small sample size postseason-only techniques shouldn’t be how a closer gets evaluated. Per your argument, Familia can come into a game with the tying run in scoring position and no one out, induce 3 infield grounders that allow the run to score, and receive a label of not getting the job done. But Kimbrel can come in with a 2 run lead, walk the bases loaded, and escape because Andrew Benintendi made a catch he had no business making, and Kimbrel is clearly the guy. After all, he got the job done.

 

If the Sox do sign a closer, there are numerous free agents available with experience, not just Kimbrel. Familia is one of the better ones and his 9ph fastball is certainly a trait Dombrowski has historically coveted in any pitcher (like Eovaldi and Brasier, for example). But the failures of his defense and manager back in 2015 don’t make him a “discount closer” destined to fail in the postseason...

[sk7326]

Replacing any position has costs in time, money and talent that aren't necessary if you can afford to bring back your guy.

 

Furthermore replacing a closer is not all that easy and replacing any MLB player or role is susceptable to setbacks and mistakes that can torpedo whole seasons and drive the cost yet higher.

 

Everyone here has seem failed closers. Everyone here has seen both professional closers fail, and people slotted to move up into the closer's role not get it done. There is both a material and opportunity cost in attempting to replace a closer, just like with any other baseball role, and one o those risks is the potential need to do so multiple times if the first guy fails. Incurring those costs and risks when you don't have to is usually foolish.

 

You guys talk so much about the cost of paying our closer... I wish you'd give at least some thought to the potential costs associated with NOT doing so.

 

I HAVE seen failed closers - but the solution to a bad closer is relatively easy - cut bait and try something else. I mean, Fernando Rodney sorts really are a dime a dozen. As I've noted before Tampa for years just found decent closers by fishing through other teams' garbage.

[Dojji]

I HAVE seen failed closers - but the solution to a bad closer is relatively easy - cut bait and try something else.

 

And this costs time and, depending on the 'someone else,' other resources, that you didn't have to spend gambling unnecessarily on untried closing options, and usually in a buyers' market.

[sk7326]

Here is the thing ... it makes much more sense to say, resign Pomeranz (if you can get a shorter deal) than a lot of the other options. Healthy Pomeranz at least has legit middle-rotation ability. Now if the market for Pomeranz got overheated, that is another thing. But that is the easiest, most likely path to get some quality from the #5 spot.

[dgalehouse]

The budget is a concern for sure . But if you want a championship caliber team you need quality players . Don't start grabbing a bunch of ham and eggers , hoping to find a diamond in the rough. That will not work. I think D.D. understands this.

[notin]

The budget is a concern for sure . But if you want a championship caliber team you need quality players . Don't start grabbing a bunch of ham and eggers , hoping to find a diamond in the rough. That will not work. I think D.D. understands this.

 

So no more Ryan Brasier types?

[notin]

Here is the thing ... it makes much more sense to say, resign Pomeranz (if you can get a shorter deal) than a lot of the other options. Healthy Pomeranz at least has legit middle-rotation ability. Now if the market for Pomeranz got overheated, that is another thing. But that is the easiest, most likely path to get some quality from the #5 spot.

 

I like the idea of bringing Pomeranz back and spending bigger money on the bullpen. My only gripe with Pomeranz is the Sox rotaoisnpretty lefty-heavy to begin with, but that should not be a dealbreaker.

 

Of course, Pomeranz might prefer an NL tea with a big ballpark to increase his numbers and get a bigger deal. If he does, adios Drew...