A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

When we were talking about this before, I think we figured out that the only time in history a team in contention at the deadline traded a significant player was when the Rays traded Kazmir.

 

With the uncertainties of the upcoming labor dispute and a new CBA, this may be the summer for a lot of movement by GMs trying to extract value from impending free agents.

[moonslav59]

The big deadline foundational questions are:

 

What is the meaning of "still in it?" (Contender or not)

For a ring or a play-in WC shot?

 

Is 4, 6 or 8 games behind the last WC slot "out of it?"

 

Does how we are playing the 7-14 days before the deadline play a major role?

 

One has to think with the "magic" this team has shown and their ability to fight back, come back and streak, at times, maybe the "crap shoot" nature of the playoffs is just what this team would be good at.

 

If we are tied for first place, I can't see us trading Barnes & Ottavino. Maybe, if Sale looks good, we trade ERod, but for what?

 

Maybe we'll be buyers and sellers.

[Bellhorn04]

That was the only one we thought of. I also remembered the Sox trading David Wells, when many felt we still had a shot.

 

Wells, huh? Let's see.

 

They traded him on August 31, 2006, when we were 6 games out of a Wild Card spot and half the team was on the DL. He had pitched only 47 innings with a 4.98 ERA, and brought back George Kottaras.

 

I do recall that some Red Sox fans grumbled about it at the time, but I think it was a pretty faint grumbling.

[moonslav59]

Wells, huh? Let's see.

 

They traded him on August 31, 2006, when we were 6 games out of a Wild Card spot and half the team was on the DL. He had pitched only 47 innings with a 4.98 ERA, and brought back George Kottaras.

 

I do recall that some Red Sox fans grumbled about it at the time, but I think it was a pretty faint grumbling.

 

So, 6 games back is out of it?

 

Had we traded for players instead of trading players away, in theory, we could have been "in it."

 

I do remember people saying, the Sox are not the type of team to do that.

 

Look, I'm not sure what to do. I'm just throwing things out there.

 

At this point, my feelings are mixed.

[Bellhorn04]

With the uncertainties of the upcoming labor dispute and a new CBA, this may be the summer for a lot of movement by GMs trying to extract value from impending free agents.

 

GMs are always thinking about trying to extract value from impending free agents, I expect.

 

The question is whether any who are in contention would actually do it.

 

It's like kicking your fans in the stomach. And baseball fans are already an endangered species.

[Bellhorn04]

So, 6 games back is out of it?

 

Had we traded for players instead of trading players away, in theory, we could have been "in it."

 

6 games back at the end of August (not July) when the team was ravaged by injuries. Like I say, there was some grumbling, but I don't think it was a huge deal.

[Hugh2]

A position he's never played?

 

I think he plays CF and Kike platoons with Dalbec at 1B and plays some 2B until Arroyo returns.

 

Moving from CF to LF is not a huge deal, the Sox have made moves like this before. It’s not uncommon to develop a player at a premium position and move him off when needed.

 

I’d be willing to bet Duran plays LF not CF, let’s call it a gentleman’s bet.

 

I don’t envision Dalbec as a platoon, I think you have to give him at bats to help him progress. It’s the same thing with Duran, you’re not bringing him up mid season to get half reps, he’s going to play LF full time.

 

However, if Dalbec continues his struggles and the Sox decide they need to make moves to compete I think you may be right on Kike, and he’s going to have to make his at bats up somewhere with Duran out in left.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The big deadline foundational questions are:

 

What is the meaning of "still in it?" (Contender or not)

For a ring or a play-in WC shot?

 

Is 4, 6 or 8 games behind the last WC slot "out of it?"

 

Does how we are playing the 7-14 days before the deadline play a major role?

 

One has to think with the "magic" this team has shown and their ability to fight back, come back and streak, at times, maybe the "crap shoot" nature of the playoffs is just what this team would be good at.

 

If we are tied for first place, I can't see us trading Barnes & Ottavino. Maybe, if Sale looks good, we trade ERod, but for what?

 

Maybe we'll be buyers and sellers.

 

Boston traded the face of the (failed) franchise -- NoMAAAr -- at the '04 deadline. The Sox were in second place, got better, and still finished second (but first in the postseason).

[Bellhorn04]

Boston traded the face of the (failed) franchise -- NoMAAAr -- at the '04 deadline. The Sox were in second place, got better, and still finished second (but first in the postseason).

 

They did, but it wasn't a throw in the towel trade, it was the exact opposite.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

They did, but it wasn't a throw in the towel trade, it was the exact opposite.

 

Agreed, which is how I think Bloom will feel when he gets back a haul for Barnes. Sox fans who have watched Barnes' inconsistencies every summer (often after having great springs) won't necessarily view it as surrender -- especially if another live arm is part of the return.

[notin]

Agreed, which is how I think Bloom will feel when he gets back a haul for Barnes. Sox fans who have watched Barnes' inconsistencies every summer (often after having great springs) won't necessarily view it as surrender -- especially if another live arm is part of the return.

 

If ever there was a "sell high" opportunity eith Barnes, it is next month.

 

Of course, I have serious doubts that he commands anywhere near $20mill AAV on the free agent market. He won't be as tough to re-sign and possibly more expensive to replace...

[notin]

Boston traded the face of the (failed) franchise -- NoMAAAr -- at the '04 deadline. The Sox were in second place, got better, and still finished second (but first in the postseason).

 

Maybe a similar trade with similar goal of upgrading defense.

 

Bogaerts and Dalbec to Atlanta for Freeman and Swanson. (And surprisingly, it does work out on BTV.)

[mvp 78]

Maybe a similar trade with similar goal of upgrading defense.

 

Bogaerts and Dalbec to Atlanta for Freeman and Swanson. (And surprisingly, it does work out on BTV.)

 

No. It's a Friday. Why are you doing this to us?

[Bellhorn04]

Agreed, which is how I think Bloom will feel when he gets back a haul for Barnes. Sox fans who have watched Barnes' inconsistencies every summer (often after having great springs) won't necessarily view it as surrender -- especially if another live arm is part of the return.

 

It's unlikely you're going to trade Barnes to a contender and get back a useful arm for this year. Why would a contender trade one of their useful arms?

 

It has to be a trade scenario that makes sense on both sides.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Maybe a similar trade with similar goal of upgrading defense.

 

Bogaerts and Dalbec to Atlanta for Freeman and Swanson. (And surprisingly, it does work out on BTV.)

 

I'm not opposed to it, but Braves' fans would be. Trading the reigning NL MVP would certainly look like surrender and may signal -- not a rebuild, but a revamp -- for underachieving Atlanta. If the Braves are willing to deal, then I'd expect Bloom to expand it to include one of their young arms...

 

Acquiring a star like Freeman also opens up a lot of questions here. Does the 31-year-old have another five years of production approaching his career averages of 28-98-.293-.889? If so, is he the guy Bloom tries to extend longterm? And then... which top-rated pitching prospect does he trade Casas for?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's unlikely you're going to trade Barnes to a contender and get back a useful arm for this year. Why would a contender trade one of their useful arms?

 

It has to be a trade scenario that makes sense on both sides.

 

I was envisioning someone more unproven, even a minor leaguer, that the front office may be eying as ready to emerge as an MLB weapon. This is only based on recent history with the Rays, who seem to roll out endless no-names in every series who throw 98 mph vs. the Sox. I wouldn't be surprised if Tampa keeps a list of flame-throwers to consider acquiring at every level from every team; Bloom must remember a lot of those targets.

[Nick]

If ever there was a "sell high" opportunity eith Barnes, it is next month.

 

Of course, I have serious doubts that he commands anywhere near $20mill AAV on the free agent market. He won't be as tough to re-sign and possibly more expensive to replace...

 

It was little over a month ago and I suggested 4 yr, $40M for Barnes. I know there were people saying he would command about $18M.

 

I just have problem paying that much for a bullpen guy. Period.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It was little over a month ago and I suggested 4 yr, $40M for Barnes. I know there were people saying he would command about $18M.

 

I just have problem paying that much for a bullpen guy. Period.

 

So does Tampa, apparently. If we look at recent history for Bloom's Rays, they treat closers as fluid assets to use every season to swap for upgrades. Here are Tampa's yearly leaders in saves since 2013: Rodney, McGee, Boxberger, Colome, Colome, Romo, Pagan, Anderson, Castillo... it's been a different guy every year but one.

[Kimmi]

What if they all love the spots they're in? I thought player comfort trumped other considerations.

 

I'm confoozed.

 

The points made in my post are based strictly off of what the numbers say. As you can see, most of the line up changes make very little difference. So yes, if Cora is keeping the line up the way he has it because players have told him that they don't want to hit in another spot, then I'm all for it. I have not seen any indication that this is the case, however. To me, it sounds like Cora is just intent on having the #2-5 spots remain where they are.

 

Unlike most batting order tweaks, having what should be a #8 hitter (Kike) batting lead off is a pretty egregious error for this line up, as far as managerial errors go. It's akin to batting a pitcher at the top of the order. It could cost the team 2 games over the course of the season. If Cora does not have a strong reason for not putting Verdugo in the lead off spot, then he is making a mistake, IMO.

[Kimmi]

Great stuff, thanks.

 

That said, your points 1 and 2 seem diametrically opposed to points 3 and 4. If who is indeed far more important than where, why worry about the #1 and #3 slots?

 

If, however, OBP is indeed king, then this lineup might make sense: Verdugo, Bogaerts, JD Martinez, Devers, Renfroe, Arroyo, Hernandez, Vazquez, Dalbec. If nothing else, the Sox 6 best hitters (OBP and OPS) get the most at bats.

 

Personally, I would be okay with Verdugo, JD, Bogaerts, and Devers batting in any order in the top 5 spots. JD batting 3rd is not that big a deal - I'll grant you that, though I still would not put him in the 3 hole.

 

Batting Kike or Santana lead off is a big deal.

 

OBP is king, and it has been stated that simply setting your line up in order of decreasing OBP would give you a very effective line up.

[Kimmi]

Baseball Musings Lineup Tool ? Ooofah!! The end is near.

 

LOL You are too funny.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi please e-mail Cora on optimal lineup.

 

Cora should know better. Which is why I think he is being a tad stubborn with this #2-5 business.

 

I can fully understand liking his 2-5 if there were someone in the leadoff spot who could create a spark ahead of these guys. Our numbers out of the leadoff spot aren't just bad, they are terrible.

 

I am thinking having our leadoff batter retired so easily to start of most games gives the opposing pitcher a little boost in confidence.

[Kimmi]

If we end up being sellers, Barnes & Ottavino might fetch some nice returns.

 

You are speaking nonsense, Moon.

[Kimmi]

A Washington Post analysis of the "lucky" first-place Red Sox:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/06/24/boston-red-sox-lucky-first-place/

 

As one who often looks at run differential and Pythagorean W-L records, this is old news to me.

 

The Jays have been a tad on the unlucky side.

 

Regardless, the Sox would still be right in the thick of things, and still ahead of the dreaded Yankees.

[Bellhorn04]

Cora should know better. Which is why I think he is being a tad stubborn with this #2-5 business.

 

I can fully understand liking his 2-5 if there were someone in the leadoff spot who could create a spark ahead of these guys. Our numbers out of the leadoff spot aren't just bad, they are terrible.

 

I am thinking having our leadoff batter retired so easily to start of most games gives the opposing pitcher a little boost in confidence.

 

The Red Sox do have an .818 OPS in the first inning, however.

[mvp 78]

The Red Sox do have an .818 OPS in the first inning, however.

 

The 1st batter of the game has an OPS+ of 45...........................

 

OPS+ for leadoff is 67.

 

I think they have a high OPS in the first inning because of who hits 2-4.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

A Washington Post analysis of the "lucky" first-place Red Sox:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/06/24/boston-red-sox-lucky-first-place/

 

Surprisingly, that article didn't mention the real 'elephant in the room,' the starting pitching, which more than any other factor makes the SOX damn lucky to be where they are.

[Maxbialystock]

The Red Sox do have an .818 OPS in the first inning, however.

 

Really?

[Nick]

Really?

 

It would be over 1.000 if not for pitcher batting lead off.

[Bellhorn04]

The 1st batter of the game has an OPS+ of 45...........................

 

OPS+ for leadoff is 67.

 

I think they have a high OPS in the first inning because of who hits 2-4.

 

No question. But Kimmi was talking about the opposing pitcher getting a boost from an easy first out.