Major Concerns

[notin]

Worst pitch in modern Red Sox history. The official scorer called it a wild pitch, because it almost hit Wilson... and how history could've changed if it did.

 

There are plenty of contenders for worst nightmare: the Leephus to Tony Perez in '75 that tied Game Seven (Yaz called it "that slop curveball by Bill Lee"); Torrez' meatball to Dent; maybe Wakefield's floater to Boone or something by Pedro -- (probably the one Matsui ripped after the mound conference; Posada tied it with a pop-up)... but both those guys are thought of as heroic for their efforts.

 

Stanley's to the backstop had to be the biggest letdown, one out away from a world title. That was worse for me than Buckner's E, because once NY tied it -- and the way they tied it -- we all knew the outcome was inevitable. But I remember my step-father, who was a catcher and a Mets fan, just saying, "That had to be a cross-up."

 

And to think, none of that might have happened if not for Shag Crawford pitching out of a bases loaded, no one out jam with only one tying run allowed in the Henderson game of the ALCS.

 

And where was Crawford the next time the season was on the line? All I remember was me shouting for Shag at my insolent and unresponsive television. I blame it to this day...

[mvp 78]

And to think, none of that might have happened if not for Shag Crawford pitching out of a bases loaded, no one out jam with only one tying run allowed in the Henderson game of the ALCS.

 

And where was Crawford the next time the season was on the line? All I remember was me shouting for Shag at my insolent and unresponsive television. I blame it to this day...

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=crawfst01&t=p&post=1

 

Not to burst your bubble, but he wasn't great in game 4

[notin]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=crawfst01&t=p&post=1

 

Not to burst your bubble, but he wasn't great in game 4

 

He wasn't, but I still was calling for him to be out there in game six...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

He wasn't, but I still was calling for him to be out there in game six...

 

Hey, Crawford was the only other Sox pitcher besides Hurst to win a World Series game in '86.

 

Sox paid Steve Crawford $330,000 that season. Somehow, that seems a better Crawford value than Boston paying Carl $115,171 per HIT in the 2011 regular season.

[Thunder]

Are we seriously going to send down Houck? WTF

[moonslav59]

Are we seriously going to send down Houck? WTF

 

They aren't DFA'ing Richards after one start, so when ERod is back, I think they will.

 

They will also likely gain an extra year of team control by keeping him in AAA for a few weeks.

 

He looked real good, last start, so I can understand keeping him around, but Pivetta & Eovaldi looked good, too.

 

If Perez sucks, tonight, there will be a more heated debate about demoting Houck.

[Thunder]

They aren't DFA'ing Richards after one start, so when ERod is back, I think they will.

 

They will also likely gain an extra year of team control by keeping him in AAA for a few weeks.

 

He looked real good, last start, so I can understand keeping him around, but Pivetta & Eovaldi looked good, too.

 

If Perez sucks, tonight, there will be a more heated debate about demoting Houck.

 

Why can't we send Perez down? Houck needs to be here IMO. Unless Perez absolutely deals tonight, I say send him down for now. In June, if Richards is still struggling, send him down and bring Perez back up. Houck has the potential to put butts in the seats as the summer goes on, assuming more butts will be allowed in the seats by then.

[notin]

Why can't we send Perez down? Houck needs to be here IMO. Unless Perez absolutely deals tonight, I say send him down for now. In June, if Richards is still struggling, send him down and bring Perez back up. Houck has the potential to put butts in the seats as the summer goes on, assuming more butts will be allowed in the seats by then.

 

Houck has options. Perez does not. Neither does Richards, or most veterans with more than 4 years in MLB. So sending them down requires clearing waivers.

 

The bigger question is - why not send Taylor down?

[moonslav59]

Why can't we send Perez down? Houck needs to be here IMO. Unless Perez absolutely deals tonight, I say send him down for now. In June, if Richards is still struggling, send him down and bring Perez back up. Houck has the potential to put butts in the seats as the summer goes on, assuming more butts will be allowed in the seats by then.

 

Perez has no options remaining.

 

Pitchers with options left:

Barnes

ERod

Sale (IL)

Brasier (IL)

Brewer (not on 26 man)

Taylor

DHern

Valdez

Richards

Sawamura

 

Whitlock is rule 5 and would be lost, if we sent him down.

Ottavino, Pivetta, Andriese & Brice are out of options, too.

 

 

[notin]

Perez has no options remaining.

 

Pitchers with options left:

Barnes

ERod

Sale (IL)

Brasier (IL)

Brewer (not on 26 man)

Taylor

DHern

Valdez

Richards

Sawamura

 

Whitlock is rule 5 and would be lost, if we sent him down.

Ottavino, Pivetta, Andriese & Brice are out of options, too.

 

 

 

How can Sale have options left? Not that it matters, since he is not exactly someone anyone should ever consider demoting when he is healthy...

[moonslav59]

How can Sale have options left? Not that it matters, since he is not exactly someone anyone should ever consider demoting when he is healthy...

 

Technically, many vets have "options" remaining, but I think after so many years, you can refuse being sent down.

[notin]

Really Taylor and his 45.00 ERA and 9.00 WHIP would be lucky if he was just demoted to Worcester. I know it's only 2 games, but he is not someone I would mistake for a major league pitcher right now...

[notin]

Technically, many vets have "options" remaining, but I think after so many years, you can refuse being sent down.

 

but they also burn an option year every season in the majors, right?

[moonslav59]

Really Taylor and his 45.00 ERA and 9.00 WHIP would be lucky if he was just demoted to Worcester. I know it's only 2 games, but he is not someone I would mistake for a major league pitcher right now...

 

I think they still have dreams of 2018. Hoping he can regain.

 

To me, I like Taylor's chances of being good, going forward, more than Brice and maybe even Valdez, but I guess Brice has some dirt on Bloom.

[moonslav59]

but they also burn an option year every season in the majors, right?

 

Not sure: just going by soxprospects.com

[Bellhorn04]

Why can't we send Perez down? Houck needs to be here IMO. Unless Perez absolutely deals tonight, I say send him down for now. In June, if Richards is still struggling, send him down and bring Perez back up. Houck has the potential to put butts in the seats as the summer goes on, assuming more butts will be allowed in the seats by then.

 

There will be a limit on Houck's innings this year, so that has to be taken into account too.

[moonslav59]

There will be a limit on Houck's innings this year, so that has to be taken into account too.

 

Exactly. I can't see anybody thinking he'll get over 150 or 160 IP, so we can structure those IP'd in a way where he still gains a year of team control.

 

If we are in the race, this summer, we may choose to value keeping him on the big club all year, even if he does not start more than 20-24 games.

[a700hitter]

There will be a limit on Houck's innings this year, so that has to be taken into account too.

They need to limit Taylor’s runs.

[mvp 78]

They need to limit Taylor’s runs.

 

He’ll be fine down in WOO

[notin]

He’ll be fine down in WOO

 

Send him!!

[cp176]

Are we seriously going to send down Houck? WTF

 

Houck deserves to be with the big club. His talent should be more important than whatever his options might be. Oh well, we all know it is about the budget right. lol Seriously, he has earned the right to be there.

[moonslav59]

Houck deserves to be with the big club. His talent should be more important than whatever his options might be. Oh well, we all know it is about the budget right. lol Seriously, he has earned the right to be there.

 

The other factor is the need to limit his innings/starts.

 

We can do that by keeping him on the big club all year as a RP'er and spot starter, but that kind of messes up his SP'er groove.

 

Maybe, the best way to limit his innings is to let him start 22-24 starts (4-7 IP each), which could allow us to send him to AAA for 4-5 weeks and gain an extra year of cheap team control as a side benefit- not the main reason.

 

It's a tough call. He's surely better than many pitchers on our ML roster, but unless we use him as a RP'er, he's headed towards 180 IP plus.

[notin]

Houck deserves to be with the big club. His talent should be more important than whatever his options might be. Oh well, we all know it is about the budget right. lol Seriously, he has earned the right to be there.

 

Agreed.

 

Even if he is not a starter, he is a better bullpen option than Valdez or Taylor, both of whom have options. Middle relief would be fine. Or put him in a closer role or a high leverage role.

 

And Houck is in his age 25 season. So sending him down for service time considerations only gets you his age 31 season. Not the same as letting a 27 or 28yo player hit free agency by a long shot...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Agreed.

 

Even if he is not a starter, he is a better bullpen option than Valdez or Taylor, both of whom have options. Middle relief would be fine. Or put him in a closer role or a high leverage role.

 

And Houck is in his age 25 season. So sending him down for service time considerations only gets you his age 31 season. Not the same as letting a 27 or 28yo player hit free agency by a long shot...

 

Except: "it would be inaccurate to say we are going for it with an all-in approach".

 

Sending Houck down because of service time considerations should make Bloom boosters happy, because Tampa doesn't care about using up young guys they know they'll trade before they have to pay them. Of course, Bloom also knows a player with more years of control is a better trade chip...

[notin]

Except: "it would be inaccurate to say we are going for it with an all-in approach".

 

Sending Houck down because of service time considerations should make Bloom boosters happy, because Tampa doesn't care about using up young guys they know they'll trade before they have to pay them. Of course, Bloom also knows a player with more years of control is a better trade chip...

 

1) How much better of a trade chip is a 25yo player with 5.5 years of cotnrol vs a 25yo player with 6 years of control? I don't think the extra half-year of control adds much to the equation.

 

2) It's really tough to argue that demoting Taylor or Valdez to keep Houck on the roster constitutes going "all in". By this logic, the Sox should demote Devers to Worcester for the season and get the extra year of control. In fact, that actually makes more sense that trying to do so with Houck. (Which still doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense.)

 

3) Actually Tampa's approach has been to lock up younger players as early as possible, with prime examples being Evan Longoria and Matt Moore, neither of whom had a dozen games under their belt before signing extensions. The goal is to avoid the rather unpredictable arbitration years. More recently, they have been trying to get something done with Randy Arozarena. And we can all expect Brandon Lowe to get such a deal at some point this year or early in the coming off-season. Now, they will probably deal Willy Adames this offseason, even amidst the overcrowded free agent shortstop market, but that also involves a potential clearing for top prospect Wander Franco, and not an attempt to avoid paying him...

[mvp 78]

It would be foolish to move Houck down for service time. I don't think he's good enough to get priced out of Boston. He's most likely still a late inning reliever. Keep him up as long as he's productive.

[notin]

It would be foolish to move Houck down for service time. I don't think he's good enough to get priced out of Boston. He's most likely still a late inning reliever. Keep him up as long as he's productive.

 

Agree.

 

If the argument is your're buying his age 31 season, it should end right there. Heck, we do not even know if he will have an age 31 season...

[illinoisredsox]

but they also burn an option year every season in the majors, right?

 

Not sure: just going by soxprospects.com

 

You burn an option every year you are sent down after being placed on the 40 man roster. You don’t have to be called up to the big club for that to kick in. Teams will generally wait to put youngsters on the 40 man until they are ready to call them up for the first time.

[notin]

You burn an option every year you are sent down after being placed on the 40 man roster. You don’t have to be called up to the big club for that to kick in. Teams will generally wait to put youngsters on the 40 man until they are ready to call them up for the first time.

 

So then how does Sale, who has been on active 40 man roster since 2010, still have an option remaining?

[mvp 78]

Agree.

 

If the argument is your're buying his age 31 season, it should end right there. Heck, we do not even know if he will have an age 31 season...

 

^^^

 

I understand playing around with service time for a 21 year old blue chipper. Houck is not that.