And the off season begins (2018-19)

[notin]

I think career ERA is a pretty good indicator for a reliever . A couple of bad innings can inflate the ERA for a season . But if a guy has been around for a while , he has probably built up a pretty good base of innings in his career .

 

Ok but his 5.44 ERA from 4 years ago shouldn’t be weighed as equally as his ERA from 2018. A career ERA does exactly that. Career ERA ignores that he’s gotten better every year.

 

The Sox might opt for a setup guy like Alex Wilson or AJ Ramos or Shawn Kelley or Brandon Maurer and give Barnes a shot at the ninth...

[OH FOY]

That 3 Run Homer in game 4 was a pretty big hit in the WS. I like Moreland. Down 4-0, that hit got everything going. Lost the night before, one of the most crucial hits in that Series.

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly . If that was the plan , it would be absolutely asinine . And I don't see Dombrowski or Henry as asinine. I am sure they do have a plan for the pen . But I am starting to get nervous about it .

 

Don't be nervous, honestly. Lots of time left and a lot of unsigned relievers, not to mention trade possibilities.

 

Last year this time we were getting antsy about JD Martinez. Turned out OK.

[Bellhorn04]

That 3 Run Homer in game 4 was a pretty big hit in the WS. I like Moreland. Down 4-0, that hit got everything going. Lost the night before, one of the most crucial hits in that Series.

 

You're right, it was very very big. It was Bobby Jenks big.

[dgalehouse]

That 3 Run Homer in game 4 was a pretty big hit in the WS. I like Moreland. Down 4-0, that hit got everything going. Lost the night before, one of the most crucial hits in that Series.

 

Moreland is okay both on offense and defense. For some reason, Moon is always wanting to get rid of him. For the money, he is a pretty good value.

[dgalehouse]

Don't be nervous, honestly. Lots of time left and a lot of unsigned relievers, not to mention trade possibilities.

 

Last year this time we were getting antsy about JD Martinez. Turned out OK.

True. We could get a good one for less than one might expect. There is not a big market for guys like Britton and Kimbrel. Some teams that want , and can afford, a high end closer, already have one . I always have liked the adage , " Let the market decide."

[moonslav59]

Moreland is okay both on offense and defense. For some reason, Moon is always wanting to get rid of him. For the money, he is a pretty good value.

 

He hits a wall (injury) every year.

 

He's kinda grown on me, but I look at it this way:

 

If Henry is okay with going over the $40M line every year, then we don't need to clear salary space for a solid closer. A while ago we were talking about Eovaldi vs Kimbrel, but I know who I'm picking, if it's between Moreland + Nunez or a solid closer.

 

I know our bench would be severely weakened, but who else can we trade making more than $4M? Anybody needed less than Moreland or Nunez (other than untradeable Pedey)?

 

 

 

[notin]

Don't be nervous, honestly. Lots of time left and a lot of unsigned relievers, not to mention trade possibilities.

 

Last year this time we were getting antsy about JD Martinez. Turned out OK.

 

 

Trading is a distinct possibity. The Sox have four players on their roster who are or have been supersubs - Holt (1b, 2b, 3b, ss, lf, cf, rf), Nunez (2b, 3b, ss, lf, rf), Swihart (c, 1b, 2b, 3b, lf, rf) and Pearce (1b, 2b, 3b, lf, rf). Now each player may not be so capable at each position anymore, but all have been tried all over the place. 4 super subs and only 3 roster spots.

 

The most tradable is probably Holt, since he’s coming off a great season and makes very little. Nunez is probably actually a better all around player, but is coming off a gimpy knee.

 

If the Sox trade former All Star Holt, who only has one season of control left, they still might be able to get a good reliever.

 

Would you trade Holt for Mychael Givens or Kirby Yates? Or someone else? One year of Brock Holt for one year of Will Smith makes some sense for both teams....

Edited December 28, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

Trading is a distinct possibity. The Sox have four players on their roster who are or have been supersubs - Holt (1b, 2b, 3b, ss, lf, cf, rf), Nunez (2b, 3b, ss, lf, rf), Swihart (c, 1b, 2b, 3b, lf, rf) and Pearce (1b, 2b, 3b, lf, rf). Now each player may not be so capable at each position anymore, but all have been tried all over the place. 4 super subs and only 3 roster spots.

 

The most tradable is probably Holt, since he’s coming off a great season and makes very little. Nunez is probably actually a better all around player, but is coming off a gimpy knee.

 

If the Sox trade former All Star Holt, who only has one season of control left, they still might be able to get a good reliever.

 

Would you trade Holt for Mychael Givens or Kirby Yates? Or someone else? One year of Brock Holt for one year of Will Smith makes some sense for both teams....

 

I have Holt penciled in at 2B starter next year, but Nunez is a close call there. They seemed to like Nunez at 3B more than Holt, so he looks to be the one we more likely keep when added to your point about Holt bringing the best return.

 

My idea of trading Nunez (or Moreland) was geared towards creating budget space. Trading Holt does not help there much.

[notin]

I have Holt penciled in at 2B starter next year, but Nunez is a close call there. They seemed to like Nunez at 3B more than Holt, so he looks to be the one we more likely keep when added to your point about Holt bringing the best return.

 

My idea of trading Nunez (or Moreland) was geared towards creating budget space. Trading Holt does not help there much.

 

But what team will want one year of Moreland or one year of Nunez? I can see a few teams wanting one year of Holt, including Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota, Houston, the Yankees (not likely), Atlanta, and Cleveland. Not all these teams might be willing to part with a reliever for him, however.

 

Nunez can be the starter at 2b. If both players are healthy, he’s probably the better option anyway. It’s easy to forget after his great season and postseason, but Holt isn’t that far removed from hitting .200 in only 140 at bats himself. He might be a good sell high option...

[moonslav59]

But what team will want one year of Moreland or one year of Nunez? I can see a few teams wanting one year of Holt, including Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota, Houston, the Yankees (not likely), Atlanta, and Cleveland. Not all these teams might be willing to part with a reliever for him, however.

 

Nunez can be the starter at 2b. If both players are healthy, he’s probably the better option anyway. It’s easy to forget after his great season and postseason, but Holt isn’t that far removed from hitting .200 in only 140 at bats himself. He might be a good sell high option...

 

I get your points and don't disagree. I'm not saying we'll get anything for Moreland, but I do have to chuckle when I hear nobody wants Moreland, yet I'm a schmuck for suggesting we might try to trade him to free up budget space to get a better closer.

 

I think it was pretty clear the Sox like Nunez more than Holt. As great as Holt did, Nunez, hobble and all, got more PAs. I agree, Holt would bring more return, but my idea was not about getting a RP'er by trading Moreland or Nunez, it was about freeing up budget space without having to trade Porcello, JBJ or someone more valuable than the two I mentioned.

 

I do think the idea of trading Holt plus maybe Chavis might get us a cheap RP'er, but that is another method of getting what we need.

 

There are a few options out there besides just plain signing a big FA and going way over the $40M mark. Yours is one way.

 

[notin]

Brock Holt for Corey Knebel also fills a big need on each team by dealing from a surplus on the other. The big stumbling block might be Holt having one year of service time while Knebel has 3. But Milwaukee might be fine with one year while waiting for Keaton Hiura to take over 2b...

[moonslav59]

Brock Holt for Corey Knebel also fills a big need on each team by dealing from a surplus on the other. The big stumbling block might be Holt having one year of service time while Knebel has 3. But Milwaukee might be fine with one year while waiting for Keaton Hiura to take over 2b...

 

We could add a prospect or Swihart.

 

We might see a lot of Kin, if we trade Holt.

 

I'm not sure...

[harmony]

Brock Holt for Corey Knebel also fills a big need on each team by dealing from a surplus on the other. The big stumbling block might be Holt having one year of service time while Knebel has 3. But Milwaukee might be fine with one year while waiting for Keaton Hiura to take over 2b...

Years of team control aside, I question whether a utility player would land a closer from a division champion that returns most key players from a 96-win club.

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-milwaukee-brewers/

[oldtimer]

We could add a prospect or Swihart.

 

We might see a lot of Kin, if we trade Holt.

 

I'm not sure...

 

I assume you meant Lin

[oldtimer]

I get your points and don't disagree. I'm not saying we'll get anything for Moreland, but I do have to chuckle when I hear nobody wants Moreland, yet I'm a schmuck for suggesting we might try to trade him to free up budget space to get a better closer.

 

I think it was pretty clear the Sox like Nunez more than Holt. As great as Holt did, Nunez, hobble and all, got more PAs. I agree, Holt would bring more return, but my idea was not about getting a RP'er by trading Moreland or Nunez, it was about freeing up budget space without having to trade Porcello, JBJ or someone more valuable than the two I mentioned.

 

I do think the idea of trading Holt plus maybe Chavis might get us a cheap RP'er, but that is another method of getting what we need.

 

There are a few options out there besides just plain signing a big FA and going way over the $40M mark. Yours is one way.

 

 

Are you thinking of trading Moreland for a low cost prospect that might be available in 2020 and beyond and then applying the money saved to a closer? Whether Moreland or Nunez, those are the only two who would return enough salary cap money to make it worthwhile, although both were an integral part of the team during the WS run. It's certain a tradeoff possibility. If we get a solid prospect for 2nd base out of it, I can see added advantages.

[Nick]

Bigger question is is it better for baseball not to give Boston opportunity to sign say Kimbrel without heavily penalizing the team? What about from players' perspective? I have a pretty good idea where Borass thinks.

 

What the owners have done is to artificially create a barrier to impede payroll implosion. No doubt that the players union will take a hard stance against some of these penalties in next CBA.

 

THIS IS WHERE I SUGGEST THERE SHOULD BE A DISCOUNT FOR HOMEGROWN TALENT. Allow a home team to give whatever contract they want to a home grown talent without facing extreme penalty.

 

Idea is to come up with a maxium amount charged against CB Payroll for player such as Betts. $25M seems to be the right amount for now.

 

Thus, each player will have a desinated 'home' team. This is one time designation and can not be changed. Whatever team the player is playing for under which he becomes eligible for Rookie of the Year consideration will be his HOME team. Betts, Beni, Devers all would have Boston Red Sox as the home team. Under this scenario, Sox can sign Betts to $35M AAV with $25M artifical payroll when computing the luxury tax penalty. It's a win win for all. I think it's a brilliant idea. (lol)

Edited December 28, 2018 by Nick

[Bellhorn04]

Bigger question is is it better for baseball not to give Boston opportunity to sign say Kimbrel without heavily penalizing the team? What about from players' perspective? I have a pretty good idea where Borass thinks.

 

What the owners have done is to artificially create a barrier to impede payroll implosion. No doubt that the players union will take a hard stance against some of these penalties in next CBA.

 

THIS IS WHERE I SUGGEST THERE SHOULD BE A DISCOUNT FOR HOMEGROWN TALENT. Allow a home team to give whatever contract they want to a home grown talent without facing extreme penalty.

 

Idea is to come up with a maxium amount charged against CB Payroll for player such as Betts. $25M seems to be the right amount for now.

 

Thus, each player will have a desinated 'home' team. This is one time designation and can not be changed. Whatever team the player is playing for under which he becomes eligible for Rookie of the Year consideration will be his HOME team. Betts, Beni, Devers all would have Boston Red Sox as the home team. Under this scenario, Sox can sign Betts to $35M AAV with $25M artifical payroll when computing the luxury tax penalty. It's a win win for all. I think it's a brilliant idea. (lol)

 

Your ideas are good for richer teams like us, but they don't fit in with the overall desire for parity. In theory parity is good for the game because it gives more teams a chance and gives more fans a reason to stay interested.

[Bellhorn04]

I get your points and don't disagree. I'm not saying we'll get anything for Moreland, but I do have to chuckle when I hear nobody wants Moreland, yet I'm a schmuck for suggesting we might try to trade him to free up budget space to get a better closer.

 

The thing about a guy like Moreland is that he's sort of a neutral asset. He makes 6 million or so and that's about exactly what he's worth. There's no surplus value to appeal to another team. For a team like us that has title aspirations and is also very rich, it doesn't make a lot of sense to trade him. We might have to eat a couple mill, so we've gained 4 mill in budget space but lost 6 mill of player value. We shouldn't have to do things like that.

[jacksonianmarch]

As much as I hate the fact that we have severe budget challenges, I do think choice like Eovaldi vs Kimbrel are a reality. I'm not saying Henry is shutting the door on any more big spending this winter, but it very well may be the case.

 

In our current case, "finding the money" is very hard. Trading Porcello would negate the Eovaldi signing. The only salaries I can see that are tradeable without us opening another huge hole are Nunez and Moreland. An argument can be made that both are very important, but probably not more than getting a solid closer. I'm not sure if anyone wanys Nunez or Moreland at their costs.

 

Again, as a hypothetical, who do take as an either/or:

 

Eovaldi

 

or

 

Kimbrel

 

To me, it's not close. It's Eovaldi.

 

To me it’s all about contingencies. Without Kimbrel, your pen is barren. Without Eovaldi, you’ve got to use BJ or Velasquez as a 5th starter. Also, everyone talks about Eo like he’s gonna throw 200IP. What happens if Eo comes out as throws 100IP and is uneven like he was before the POs and spends a bunch of time on the DL. Listen, Kimbrel was a constant. He’s gonna be closing. He’s durable. He still has the power stuff. And even with his poor (by his standards) 2018, he’s still as likely as anyone to rebound to his ridiculous standard

[kenmeister]

Bigger question is is it better for baseball not to give Boston opportunity to sign say Kimbrel without heavily penalizing the team? What about from players' perspective? I have a pretty good idea where Borass thinks.

 

What the owners have done is to artificially create a barrier to impede payroll implosion. No doubt that the players union will take a hard stance against some of these penalties in next CBA.

 

THIS IS WHERE I SUGGEST THERE SHOULD BE A DISCOUNT FOR HOMEGROWN TALENT. Allow a home team to give whatever contract they want to a home grown talent without facing extreme penalty.

 

Idea is to come up with a maxium amount charged against CB Payroll for player such as Betts. $25M seems to be the right amount for now.

 

Thus, each player will have a desinated 'home' team. This is one time designation and can not be changed. Whatever team the player is playing for under which he becomes eligible for Rookie of the Year consideration will be his HOME team. Betts, Beni, Devers all would have Boston Red Sox as the home team. Under this scenario, Sox can sign Betts to $35M AAV with $25M artifical payroll when computing the luxury tax penalty. It's a win win for all. I think it's a brilliant idea. (lol)

 

I just want to do away with the Collective Bargaining Payroll limit altogether. Teams that finish lower in the standings already get the better draft picks. Teams that sign other team's free agents lose a draft pick. There should be parity enough there. If a city has a team full of great young talent (after finishing last for a few years) and they jump into the thick of the playoff chase, but fans don't show and the tv ratings don't improve, why should they get money from teams located in cities where the fans actually care?

[kenmeister]

To me it’s all about contingencies. Without Kimbrel, your pen is barren. Without Eovaldi, you’ve got to use BJ or Velasquez as a 5th starter. Also, everyone talks about Eo like he’s gonna throw 200IP. What happens if Eo comes out as throws 100IP and is uneven like he was before the POs and spends a bunch of time on the DL. Listen, Kimbrel was a constant. He’s gonna be closing. He’s durable. He still has the power stuff. And even with his poor (by his standards) 2018, he’s still as likely as anyone to rebound to his ridiculous standard

 

First of all, Steven Wright expects to be healthy for spring training and in that case would be next in line to start. If we need to move Eovaldi to closer, it's quite possible that Wright pitches at a high level.

 

Second, I'm really not sold on Kimbrel's continued success. If the Sox do sign him, they need to go as few years as possible.

 

Third, I also think it's possible that at some point Chris Sale transitions to closer. He just doesn't seem to have starting pitcher stamina. He looked great in the last inning of the World Series.

 

Fourth, if Barnes or Brasier does make a successful closer, then we need to give larger setup roles to Johnson, Velazquez, Wright, and Workman. I think it's quite possible they can be effective at middle relief.

[Bellhorn04]

To me it’s all about contingencies. Without Kimbrel, your pen is barren. Without Eovaldi, you’ve got to use BJ or Velasquez as a 5th starter. Also, everyone talks about Eo like he’s gonna throw 200IP. What happens if Eo comes out as throws 100IP and is uneven like he was before the POs and spends a bunch of time on the DL. Listen, Kimbrel was a constant. He’s gonna be closing. He’s durable. He still has the power stuff. And even with his poor (by his standards) 2018, he’s still as likely as anyone to rebound to his ridiculous standard

 

The fact is there are some pretty clear signs that Kimbrel is in decline. 3 of his last 4 seasons he's had an fWAR of 1.5 or less. And he's not getting any younger.

 

He's definitely durable and he gets the job done most of the time. But he's probably not going to earn his next contract.

[notin]

Years of team control aside, I question whether a utility player would land a closer from a division champion that returns most key players from a 96-win club.

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-milwaukee-brewers/

 

Gee, typically you look at the fWAR of the players, but then Holt (1.4) would be better than Knebel (1.0).

 

Was Knebel really the closer last year? He lost the job to Jeremy Jeffress and was demoted to the minors at one point (which may have lead to another year of control). He did lead the team with 16 saves, but Knebel only had 2 saves after July 27th.

 

Could they get better for Holt? Maybe, but Holt had 367 PA's and a 109 OPS+ while playing 6 positions last year and is a former All Star. If one likes post-season stats, he has a .976 OPS in the last 3 post-seasons. He's not a bad player at all and certainly not just a utility player...

[notin]

I just want to do away with the Collective Bargaining Payroll limit altogether. Teams that finish lower in the standings already get the better draft picks. Teams that sign other team's free agents lose a draft pick. There should be parity enough there. If a city has a team full of great young talent (after finishing last for a few years) and they jump into the thick of the playoff chase, but fans don't show and the tv ratings don't improve, why should they get money from teams located in cities where the fans actually care?

 

Because the successful and popular teams need someone to play against. All these teams are part of the same business...

[notin]

To me it’s all about contingencies. Without Kimbrel, your pen is barren. Without Eovaldi, you’ve got to use BJ or Velasquez as a 5th starter. Also, everyone talks about Eo like he’s gonna throw 200IP. What happens if Eo comes out as throws 100IP and is uneven like he was before the POs and spends a bunch of time on the DL. Listen, Kimbrel was a constant. He’s gonna be closing. He’s durable. He still has the power stuff. And even with his poor (by his standards) 2018, he’s still as likely as anyone to rebound to his ridiculous standard

 

What exactly is his ridiculous standard? He's only had a fWAR higher than 1.5 one time since he left the Braves. When he was on the Braves, he never had one below 2.3...

[kenmeister]

Because the successful and popular teams need someone to play against. All these teams are part of the same business...

 

Well, true, but my point is that if the non-income-producing teams get the best draft picks, they should be able to field competitive teams of players under age 30. If there's going to be revenue-sharing, it should be mandated that the smaller payroll teams use that money to retain key players who would otherwise become free agents.

[notin]

Well, true, but my point is that if the non-income-producing teams get the best draft picks, they should be able to field competitive teams of players under age 30. If there's going to be revenue-sharing, it should be mandated that the smaller payroll teams use that money to retain key players who would otherwise become free agents.

 

 

But draft picks in baseball are an even bigger crapshoot than other sports. Most picks after the first round turn out to be useless or marginal, and even first round picks, which typically carry the majority of future value in any draft, only have a 70% success rate for even making an MLB roster, let alone contributing. Not to mention, by the time they start contributing, they’re approaching free agency and pricing themselves out of the small market range.

 

Your “home team discount” plan also does nothing but widen the talent gap between small and large markets. Those teams don’t lose players due to financial penalties...

[Nick]

But draft picks in baseball are an even bigger crapshoot than other sports. Most picks after the first round turn out to be useless or marginal, and even first round picks, which typically carry the majority of future value in any draft, only have a 70% success rate for even making an MLB roster, let alone contributing. Not to mention, by the time they start contributing, they’re approaching free agency and pricing themselves out of the small market range.

 

Your “home team discount” plan also does nothing but widen the talent gap between small and large markets. Those teams don’t lose players due to financial penalties...

 

I suggested the home team discount.

 

Perhaps what needs to happen is to implement penalties for teams not spending minimum CB payroll. Make the 'floor' relative to the 'ceiling' as it exists. Say the gap should be $100M. So for 2019, each team must spend at least $108M.

 

For 2018, 5 teams had payroll of less than $100M.

[notin]

I suggested the home team discount.

 

Perhaps what needs to happen is to implement penalties for teams not spending minimum CB payroll. Make the 'floor' relative to the 'ceiling' as it exists. Say the gap should be $100M. So for 2019, each team must spend at least $108M.

 

For 2018, 5 teams had payroll of less than $100M.

 

My bad.

I’ve heard numerous roposals for salary floors and ceilings. I do think MLB owners would probably like this, but the MLBPA would not....