Craig Breslow hired as Head Of Baseball Operations

[moonslav59]

By throwing around gobs and gobs of cash…

 

But then why not sign a pitcher and save the prospects?

[Bellhorn04]

But then why not sign a pitcher and save the prospects?

 

Ay, there's the rub.

[moonslav59]

Ay, there's the rub.

 

If we could get Burnes at a discount rate, then it's worth it.

 

Burnes may be better than Snell and Monty, but not by enough to give up top prospects for s light upgrade and a bigger budget hit.

[mvp 78]

And how do you guarantee you'll be able to extend them?

 

By giving them a large FMV contract.

[mvp 78]

Eloy Jimenez is a trade target in an astute poster’s offseason plan for the Seattle Mariners:

 

https://www.marinertalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8790&start=560#p271859

 

🥴

 

I guess it's time to make a Mark Langston stan account and go bother some people...

[mvp 78]

If we could get Burnes at a discount rate, then it's worth it.

 

Burnes may be better than Snell and Monty, but not by enough to give up top prospects for s light upgrade and a bigger budget hit.

 

If he's better, then that's why you do it.

[moonslav59]

If he's better, then that's why you do it.

 

The second part of that sentence is the kicker.

 

How much better is he?

 

Is the differential in skill worth the pay difference PLUS Crawford and Whitlock?

 

Monty, Whitlock & Crawford > Burnes ???

[mvp 78]

The second part of that sentence is the kicker.

 

How much better is he?

 

Is the differential in skill worth the pay difference PLUS Crawford and Whitlock?

 

Monty, Whitlock & Crawford > Burnes ???

 

Yeah, I'd rather have Burnes than those three.

[moonslav59]

Yeah, I'd rather have Burnes than those three.

 

Burnes > Monty, Crawford and Whitlock? I'm not sure I agree, but I really like Birnes.

 

(Not sure how you figure the pay differential, as someone would take Crawford and Whit's place on the roster.)

[notin]

But then why not sign a pitcher and save the prospects?

 

1. Budget limitations on the current year might be a factor. What if Burnes’ arb cost was acceptable this year and his AAV might work next season when Sale is gone.

 

2. Better pitcher?

 

3. Depends on the prospects.

[moonslav59]

1. Budget limitations on the current year might be a factor. What if Burnes’ arb cost was acceptable this year and his AAV might work next season when Sale is gone.

 

2. Better pitcher?

 

3. Depends on the prospects.

 

All true, and if not all about 2024, then maybe.

 

The comp looks like this to me:

 

Burnes, Kelly & N Robertson/Murphy

vs

Monty, Whitlock & Crawford

 

The last group could give is 450+ IP.

[mvp 78]

Burnes > Monty, Crawford and Whitlock? I'm not sure I agree, but I really like Birnes.

 

(Not sure how you figure the pay differential, as someone would take Crawford and Whit's place on the roster.)

 

At least one of Crawford or Whitlock (maybe both) will be headed to the bullpen. You even had a scenario where Crawford would start in AAA. At this point, they are both replaceable for a guy like Burnes.

[moonslav59]

At least one of Crawford or Whitlock (maybe both) will be headed to the bullpen. You even had a scenario where Crawford would start in AAA. At this point, they are both replaceable for a guy like Burnes.

 

Crawford is never starting in AAA. I think I said Schreiber or Bernardino might have to, if everyone was healthy and Mata made the 26.

 

Whitlock and Crawford can easily get 100-140 IP from the pen. Add that to 180 from Monty, and we are near 450 IP, total.

 

I like that better than 180-200 from Burnes, 80-120 from Murphy and 60-70 from Kelly or Robertson. (maybe 300-350 IP)

[mvp 78]

Crawford is never starting in AAA. I think I said Schreiber or Bernardino might have to, if everyone was healthy and Mata made the 26.

 

Whitlock and Crawford can easily get 100-140 IP from the pen. Add that to 180 from Monty, and we are near 450 IP, total.

 

I like that better than 180-200 from Burnes, 80-120 from Murphy and 60-70 from Kelly or Robertson. (maybe 300-350 IP)

 

Only 20 relievers got 70 innings or more last season. Unless the Sox are going with openers again, I'm not sure how likely that is this year for them.

[Bellhorn04]

Only 20 relievers got 70 innings or more last season. Unless the Sox are going with openers again, I'm not sure how likely that is this year for them.

 

And Whitlock has only thrown 70-80 innings each of the last 3 seasons. But moon has him "easily" throwing up to 140 innings in 2024.

[moonslav59]

And Whitlock has only thrown 70-80 innings each of the last 3 seasons. But moon has him "easily" throwing up to 140 innings in 2024.

 

Okay, but why misquote me?

 

I said "easily 100-140" for Whit and Craw, not "easily 140." I was thinking 100 for Whit and 140 for Crawford, but I should have anticipated the fact-check.

 

Maybe, I over-estimated the IP or the "easiness" part of it, but I could see Monty with 190-200, Crawford with 140-150 and Whitlock with 100-120- totalling 450. Maybe, it'ds not so easy, but I did not say just "easily 140."

[Old Red]

And Whitlock has only thrown 70-80 innings each of the last 3 seasons. But moon has him "easily" throwing up to 140 innings in 2024.

 

Whitlock hasn’t been the same pitcher since 2021 when he was strictly in the BP. He’s gotten hurt in the rotation, and hasn’t been the same pitcher back in the BP either.

[moonslav59]

Only 20 relievers got 70 innings or more last season. Unless the Sox are going with openers again, I'm not sure how likely that is this year for them.

 

Good point.

 

Had Pivetta not gone back to the rotation, he might have ended up with 110-120 IP as a RP'er over the final 5 months. I could see Crawford taking over that role in 2024, if Pivetta is our 5th SP.

[mvp 78]

And Whitlock has only thrown 70-80 innings each of the last 3 seasons. But moon has him "easily" throwing up to 140 innings in 2024.

 

In '22 and '23, those IP's include games started. If he's solely pitching out of the pen, he won't get to 70 innings IMO. Neither would Crawford. That's why I don't see them getting to 140 innings COMBINED.

[mvp 78]

Okay, but why misquote me?

 

I said "easily 100-140" for Whit and Craw, not "easily 140." I was thinking 100 for Whit and 140 for Crawford, but I should have anticipated the fact-check.

 

Maybe, I over-estimated the IP or the "easiness" part of it, but I could see Monty with 190-200, Crawford with 140-150 and Whitlock with 100-120- totalling 450. Maybe, it'ds not so easy, but I did not say just "easily 140."

 

That amount is even crazier than what I imagined then. Are you having them solely pitch out of the pen or in a combined role? If just in the pen, there is a 0.00% chance anyone on the Sox staff gets to 100 innings alone. No way unless it's as a piggyback guy WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT DO.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And Whitlock has only thrown 70-80 innings each of the last 3 seasons. But moon has him "easily" throwing up to 140 innings in 2024.

 

A phrase like this -- depending on the mood of certain posters -- could get challenged with comments like, "So you think Whitlock will vomit, if Cora requests 140 IP?" or "Are we really regurgitating this, or is it just some kind of AC reflex heartburn?"

[mvp 78]

With Whitlock's health issues, they should push him to 60 innings. If Crawford is the 6th man who gets starts here and there, he'll end up with over 70 innings, but not solely out of the pen. It's a different role IMO. It's not the classic Goose Gossage throwing 90+ innings from 75-84. Even guys like Quisenberry would go over 100 from 80-85, but the game has really changed since then. Relievers just don't pitch those kind of bulk innings anymore.

[mvp 78]

A phrase like this -- depending on the mood of certain posters -- could get challenged with comments like, "So you think Whitlock will vomit, if Cora requests 140 IP?" or "Are we really regurgitating this, or is it just some kind of AC reflex heartburn?"

 

I'd be worried about dehydration with that much puke. I hope they have a pallet of pedialyte on hand for him.

[moonslav59]

That amount is even crazier than what I imagined then. Are you having them solely pitch out of the pen or in a combined role? If just in the pen, there is a 0.00% chance anyone on the Sox staff gets to 100 innings alone. No way unless it's as a piggyback guy WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT DO.

 

That does seem difficult to do.

 

I think Pivetta would have, if he was in the pen, all year, but getting two on the same team to do it, would be near impossible.

 

I was mistaken to claim that much.

[moonslav59]

With Whitlock's health issues, they should push him to 60 innings. If Crawford is the 6th man who gets starts here and there, he'll end up with over 70 innings, but not solely out of the pen. It's a different role IMO. It's not the classic Goose Gossage throwing 90+ innings from 75-84. Even guys like Quisenberry would go over 100 from 80-85, but the game has really changed since then. Relievers just don't pitch those kind of bulk innings anymore.

 

Bring back Bob Stanley!

[Bellhorn04]

Okay, but why misquote me?

 

I said "easily 100-140" for Whit and Craw, not "easily 140." I was thinking 100 for Whit and 140 for Crawford, but I should have anticipated the fact-check.

 

Maybe, I over-estimated the IP or the "easiness" part of it, but I could see Monty with 190-200, Crawford with 140-150 and Whitlock with 100-120- totalling 450. Maybe, it'ds not so easy, but I did not say just "easily 140."

 

I didn't misquote you. I quoted you as saying "easily up to 140".

 

You said 450 total with 180 from Monty, which would leave 270 from Whit and Craw.

[moonslav59]

I didn't misquote you. I quoted you as saying "easily up to 140".

 

You said 450 total with 180 from Monty, which would leave 270 from Whit and Craw.

 

I said I was mistaken, but I did not actually say "up to 140."

 

I said "can easily get 100-140," but as I said, I was mistaken. I also said "near 450" not 450.

 

It would be very difficult for one to get even 100 and nearly impossible for two.

 

I was wrong.

 

I was wrong.

 

I was wrong.

 

Need I say it more times?

[Bellhorn04]

I said I was mistaken, but I did not actually say "up to 140."

 

I said "can easily get 100-140," but as I said, I was mistaken. I also said "near 450" not 450.

 

It would be very difficult for one to get even 100 and nearly impossible for two.

 

I was wrong.

 

I was wrong.

 

I was wrong.

 

Need I say it more times?

 

Nothing to get hung about.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

MLB.com picks the New York teams as most likely to win the Yamamoto sweepstakes because of this evidence... "they're the Yankees and the Mets!"

 

The Red Sox are third, presumably because they're not...

 

If the Skanks do get Yo Yama, will it change the next generation of AL East baseball? Depends -- maybe we can get an idea by looking at the recent Masahiro Tanaka Era: Tanka joined the majors at age 25, wearing pinstripes from 2014-2020. In that time he led all Yankees in innings pitched and victories (well ahead of runner-up CC Sabathia; more than double the rest) -- as a top starter on the AL's winningest club (no, the Yanks didn't win any pennants in the crapshooting postseason... while the Red Sox won a World Series and finished last five other times).

 

Tanka also did ok in 10 postseason starts, with a WHIP of 0.981.

 

Seven years for $155M, plus a $20M posting fee = $25M annual expense. So was Tanaka worth the investment?

[mvp 78]

Bring back Bob Stanley!

 

He should have been sent straight to the wall after Game 6.