A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[S5Dewey]

Nothing against Pearce specifically , but when you are reaching the limit in your budget , it may not be the smartest thing to spend the available money on a platoon at first base . The bullpen seemed to be a much more pressing need .

 

I thought at the time that Pearce's contract was a 'reward' for his contributions toward The Ring, and it was also a bad idea just on principle. I know I've posted this here before but a GM should never give out a contract based on the previous WS. That's what happened with Sandoval too, only the mistake with Sandoval was more expensive.

[notin]

And a lot of them are sucking. It looks like a lottery, with pretty bad odds.

 

 

So?

 

Now you’re defending the original problem of ignoring the bullpen and prioritizing a back up 1b and defending it by results. (And, oddly, ignoring the poor results from the backup 1b)...

[Bellhorn04]

I thought at the time that Pearce's contract was a 'reward' for his contributions toward The Ring, and it was also a bad idea just on principle.

 

I don't buy this.

 

If we were rewarding ever player who had a great postseason we would have re-signed Kelly too.

 

People loved the Pearce signing when it was announced and thought he would get more.

[Bellhorn04]

So?

 

Now you’re defending the original problem of ignoring the bullpen and prioritizing a back up 1b and defending it by results. (And, oddly, ignoring the poor results from the backup 1b)...

 

It was the same thing in 2018. Most of the high-priced free agent relievers signed before 2018 sucked.

 

Why would you want to play a lottery with such lousy odds?

 

If there is something DD can be criticized before, it's not doing enough dumpster diving. I'll go along with that.

[notin]

It was the same thing in 2018. Most of the high-priced free agent relievers signed before 2018 sucked.

 

Why would you want to play a lottery with such lousy odds?

 

If there is something DD can be criticized before, it's not doing enough dumpster diving. I'll go along with that.

 

 

Because the relievers efrom 2018 are irrelevant?

 

And really, the class of 2019 can at worst be characterized as “sucked so far. Most if not all have less than 20IP and there is plenty’s time left in the season...

[moonslav59]

I don't buy this.

 

If we were rewarding ever player who had a great postseason we would have re-signed Kelly too.

 

People loved the Pearce signing when it was announced and thought he would get more.

 

I thought he'd get 2 years and maybe $9-10M.

 

He's a short-side platoon player.

[Bellhorn04]

Because the relievers efrom 2018 are irrelevant?

 

And really, the class of 2019 can at worst be characterized as “sucked so far. Most if not all have less than 20IP and there is plenty’s time left in the season...

 

As I said a few posts ago, it's still early for our bullpen too. There's really nothing more to say on this until later in the year.

[Bellhorn04]

I thought he'd get 2 years and maybe $9-10M.

 

He's a short-side platoon player.

 

Who also hits righties decently.

[moonslav59]

Who also hits righties decently.

 

Yes, but that is Moreland's domain (when healthy).

[devildavid]

I can understand how Pearce's WS performance dazzled the FO into signing him. But as much as I loved how he helped the Sox win it all, I didn't really expect to see him back. Looking at his age and career track record, I just thought they were lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. It didn't really make sense to consider him part of the future.

 

I was a bit more surprised that they didn't attempt to sign Kelly or Kimbrel, but I guess their philosophy is to save money on the bullpen, which can be more volatile as far as bang for the buck.

 

The other signing that I think is kind of questionable is Eovaldi. He also dazzled in the playoffs, but his track record is iffy as well. He is more potential than results. So while I expected them to sign him, I wonder if the risk is too high. A case could be made that the money spent on Pearce and Eovaldi could have been used for other needs. But I don't claim to have better options, just wondering if the dazzling performances impacted the decision making too much.

[dgalehouse]

I can understand how Pearce's WS performance dazzled the FO into signing him. But as much as I loved how he helped the Sox win it all, I didn't really expect to see him back. Looking at his age and career track record, I just thought they were lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. It didn't really make sense to consider him part of the future.

 

I was a bit more surprised that they didn't attempt to sign Kelly or Kimbrel, but I guess their philosophy is to save money on the bullpen, which can be more volatile as far as bang for the buck.

 

The other signing that I think is kind of questionable is Eovaldi. He also dazzled in the playoffs, but his track record is iffy as well. He is more potential than results. So while I expected them to sign him, I wonder if the risk is too high. A case could be made that the money spent on Pearce and Eovaldi could have been used for other needs. But I don't claim to have better options, just wondering if the dazzling performances impacted the decision making too much.

 

I agree 100% . It was a classic case of being swayed by a relatively small sample size rather than looking at the overall career performance. Sometimes it works , but generally not a good policy .

[moonslav59]

I thought we paid too much for Pearce, but the signing was not justified only by his WS performance.

 

2014-2018 (250 players with 1500+ PAs in this 5 years sample size) Pearce ranked...

 

47th in OPS at .818

 

39th in wRC+ at 123

 

His .865 OPS vs LHPs those 5 years places him 26th out of all hitters with 550+ PAs vs lefties. (24th in wRC+ at 134)

 

He's had some up and down years in those 5 years, but he's been pretty good for more than just the WS.

 

It's early. I'm hopeful he and JBJ will snap out of their funks...and soon!

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by moonslav59

[dgalehouse]

I thought we paid too much for Pearce, but the signing was not justified only by his WS performance.

 

2014-2018 (250 players with 1500+ PAs in this 5 years sample size) Pearce ranked...

 

47th in OPS at .818

 

39th in wRC+ at 123

 

His .865 OPS vs LHPs those 5 years places him 26th out of all hitters with 550+ PAs vs lefties. (24th in wRC+ at 134)

 

He's had some up and down years in those 5 years, but he's been pretty good for more than just the WS.

 

It's early. I'm hopeful he and JBJ will snap out of their funks...and soon!

 

 

The concern I have is that after one month of play , we have fallen five games behind the Yankees . And the Yankees have been decimated by injuries. If we fall ten or eleven behind them when they get healthy , it will be tough to overcome.

[oldtimer]

The concern I have is that after one month of play , we have fallen five games behind the Yankees . And the Yankees have been decimated by injuries. If we fall ten or eleven behind them when they get healthy , it will be tough to overcome.

 

Our last two games against the Tigers, our offense looked better. Perhaps the pitching was weak, while tonight we faced much better pitching and Martinez was out with back spasms. Mookie is showing signs of life and that helps but we are not that strong an offensive team and expecting to make up a lot of ground on the better teams is optimistic. Chavis is a young player and will have holes in his swing which will be discovered. Bradley is off to a horrible start and Leon is a less than 200 hitter.Vazquez is doing better than I expected but is still not an upper echelon offensive catcher. I don't see what we can do to become a .650 ball club going forward and would be happy if the team just plays good ball.

[jacksonianmarch]

We’ve been kept afloat by timely hitting and great pitching. The timely hitting usually waxes and wanes, but the pitching has been strong and that should continue. Also, we’ve got the easiest April in baseball, so that help. If we get healthy, we will be damn hard to beat, but we aren’t getting fully healthy til July.

 

For the Sox, Cora was very evasive about JDM. If he misses time due to this back issue then your lineup is screwed. Mookie may be the MVP, but JDM is the straw that stirs your lineup

[Oscars]

Moreland has joined the lengthy list of Sox who can’t hit a lick right now, as he is 5 for his last 39

[moonslav59]

The concern I have is that after one month of play , we have fallen five games behind the Yankees . And the Yankees have been decimated by injuries. If we fall ten or eleven behind them when they get healthy , it will be tough to overcome.

 

I doubt we fall that far behind, but if we do, then this season just wasn't ever going to be the one.

 

I'm far from giving up on this season, and I'm not saying you or others have, but we have almost the same team as last year. I think we have a lot of wins coming soon.

[Larry Cook]

How does the old saying go?

 

Teams can not win a World Series in April, but they can lose a World Series in April!

[Kimmi]

Disagree.

 

This is based on the myth that relief pitchers are inconsistent and therefore you can get. a good one for cheap. I think that it is true that inconsistent pitchers do become relievers, but paying for consistent relievers is acceptable.

 

And platoons are small market baseball. It’s a strategy for teams that realize they cannot pay one good player, so instead they pay 2 players who only stink part time...

 

We'll have to disagree on the need to pay for consistent relievers.

 

Also, you can word it however you want, but relievers are inconsistent for the most part.

[cp176]

Our last two games against the Tigers, our offense looked better. Perhaps the pitching was weak, while tonight we faced much better pitching and Martinez was out with back spasms. Mookie is showing signs of life and that helps but we are not that strong an offensive team and expecting to make up a lot of ground on the better teams is optimistic. Chavis is a young player and will have holes in his swing which will be discovered. Bradley is off to a horrible start and Leon is a less than 200 hitter.Vazquez is doing better than I expected but is still not an upper echelon offensive catcher. I don't see what we can do to become a .650 ball club going forward and would be happy if the team just plays good ball.

 

I think that not having a hitter like Martinez in the lineup is devastating to this team. His initial signing was needed for many reasons. The value of that bat will be tied directly to the success or failure of this team.

[Kimmi]

I agree that a team can get good relievers for cheap. The trick is being able to recognize the good ones. A team can also sign a lot of bad relievers for cheap without finding that good one and be stuck with a bullpen of bad relievers whom they're paying good money for.

 

DD has been very adroit and finding those good ones and I appreciate that. However, the philosophy of signing a bunch of pitchers and hoping one of them works out doesn't seem like a good approach.

 

I agree that the key is to find the right guys.

 

The team has enough people employed, both on the scouting side and the analytics side, to be able to do so.

[Kimmi]

The only one who wanted Kelly back was jacko.

 

I would have welcomed Kelly back, but not for that price.

[Kimmi]

So are you now defending the signing of Pearce and saying the Sox were right to ignore the bullpen? And doing so by citing a few bad reliever contracts, several of whom are still actually outperforming pitchers (plural) in our current bullpen?

 

At least you have that (-11) OPS+ from Pearce to justify everything...

 

I am 100% completely defending this.

[Kimmi]

I can understand how Pearce's WS performance dazzled the FO into signing him. But as much as I loved how he helped the Sox win it all, I didn't really expect to see him back. Looking at his age and career track record, I just thought they were lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. It didn't really make sense to consider him part of the future.

 

I was a bit more surprised that they didn't attempt to sign Kelly or Kimbrel, but I guess their philosophy is to save money on the bullpen, which can be more volatile as far as bang for the buck.

 

The other signing that I think is kind of questionable is Eovaldi. He also dazzled in the playoffs, but his track record is iffy as well. He is more potential than results. So while I expected them to sign him, I wonder if the risk is too high. A case could be made that the money spent on Pearce and Eovaldi could have been used for other needs. But I don't claim to have better options, just wondering if the dazzling performances impacted the decision making too much.

 

If the FO members are being dazzled into signing players based on their postseason performances, they have no business being in a baseball FO.

 

I give Dombrowski more credit than that.

[Kimmi]

I agree 100% . It was a classic case of being swayed by a relatively small sample size rather than looking at the overall career performance. Sometimes it works , but generally not a good policy .

 

You really think Dombrowski, not to mention all the people he has working with him, is stupid enough to fall into being swayed by a post season small sample size?

[Bellhorn04]

You really think Dombrowski, not to mention all the people he has working with him, is stupid enough to fall into being swayed by a post season small sample size?

 

It's a ridiculous notion. I'm strongly tempted to bump the Pearce signing thread to remind people how positive the reaction was at the time.

[notin]

It's a ridiculous notion. I'm strongly tempted to bump the Pearce signing thread to remind people how positive the reaction was at the time.

 

 

To be fair, a lot of us were unaware of budgetary limitations at the time of the Pearce signing, you and me included.

 

There is a big difference between not liking the Pearce signing overall and not liking it in place of other bullpen signings...

[Bellhorn04]

To be fair, a lot of us were unaware of budgetary limitations at the time of the Pearce signing, you and me included.

 

There is a big difference between not liking the Pearce signing overall and not liking it in place of other bullpen signings...

 

I'll say this, the discussions the front office had about the bullpen must have been interesting. I wonder if they decided from the very outset of the offseason that they weren't going to spend a nickel on it.

[harmony]

FanGraphs gives the Red Sox a 53 percent chance of advancing to the postseason even though the site gives five other American League teams a higher percentage:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

 

FiveThirtyEight gives the Red Sox a 40 percent chance, again trailing five AL teams:

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-mlb-predictions/

[Bellhorn04]

FanGraphs gives the Red Sox a 53 percent chance of advancing to the postseason even though the site gives five other American League teams a higher percentage:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

 

FiveThirtyEight gives the Red Sox a 40 percent chance, again trailing five AL teams:

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-mlb-predictions/

 

Percentages are so comforting. The fact is it's a simple binary proposition, we either make it or we don't. The brave man or woman will just say yes or no.