Red Sox sign Alex Bregman

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

AC said AB already tried helping out KC the first day. 

Don't trust WAR projections; how does fangraphs factor in Bregman's leadership intangibles?

Plus, what other free agent signed by Boston or anyone else had a dad who sat on Ted Williams' lap?

The front office recruited reinforcements this winter to hopefully reverse negative positions from last year (according to bb-ref's Wins Above Average By Position), including 2B at -1.5 and C -0.5.

It looks like the Red Sox will be counting on healthier seasons to address 1B -2.0 and DH -0.3.

Our worst position -- which was almost twice as bad as any other -- was the bullpen at -3.9... so we signed Chapman? 

Robertson and Finnegan can help boost our pen, at a decent price.

I think our closer and Catcher positions are the weakest. I doubt Wong hits as well as 2024, as the metrics indicated some luck. Narvaez looks good on D, but his bat has only looked decent at the minor league level.

I hope we are still working hard to make one more significant move.

My talk of trading for a top catcher is a pipedream. I know that, but we can still get better in other less shocking ways.

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, harmony said:

The ZiPS three-year WAR projections for Triston Casas are curious: 1.5 in 2025, 1.5 in 2026 and 1.7 in  2027.

Compare the ZiPS three-year WAR projections for Vaughn Grissom (1.7,1.5,1.5), Richard Fitts (1.2,1.3,1.5) and Quinn Priester (1.5,1.5,1.6).

Other projections are more bullish on Casas in 2025:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/triston-casas/22514/stats?position=1B#dashboard

Call me a homer, but I gotta think Casas will beat those projections, horrific defense and all.

 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, FredLynn said:

The only thing that might keep Bregman off 3B is a tantrum by Devers. Hopefully it won't come to that. We are a better team with Bregman at 3B and Devers at 1B/DH. I think thats pretty much indisputable.

Agreed. One thing is that Devers might be so separated from the media and Sox talk that he may not realize how many people view his decision as being so impactful and important to the team's success.

I've never viewed Devers as being selfish or so full of himself that he can't see that Bregman at 3B makes the team way better. 

Whether Devers improves 1B defense is questionable, but give him a shot, mostly because the bar set by Casas is about as low as can be.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

15 hours ago, notin said:

Bridge Year?  After Chicken Gate, most fabricated scandal ever.

 

Full Throttle was a blatant lie that actually looked worse when Werner tried to explain it.

 

Roster Construction is an old term Thats been used for decades.  Dont get worked up about one press conference…

Closer By Committee -- that one directly affected a season on the field.

Bullpens know the value of identifying roles, and having a lights-out closer. A trustworthy closer is so important, because a mediocre one who blows games in the 9th -- or just can't find the plate half the time -- can cause distress and utter gloom for both teammates and fans. 

The problem GMs and CBOs face is that most relievers are inconsistent from year to year, making it risky to invest too much longterm in acquiring them. Instead, some clubs like Boston accumulate more-affordable rehabbing veterans and hope that just one emerges as reliable.

If one doesn't, and the Red Sox have a team good enough to warrant it, they should use resources to land a better option mid-season. At least the front office and coaching staff have an edge, since guys in charge -- Breslow and Bailey -- were once pretty good big league relievers.

 

[notin]

1 hour ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Closer By Committee -- that one directly affected a season on the field.

Bullpens know the value of identifying roles, and having a lights-out closer. A trustworthy closer is so important, because a mediocre one who blows games in the 9th -- or just can't find the plate half the time -- can cause distress and utter gloom for both teammates and fans. 

The problem GMs and CBOs face is that most relievers are inconsistent from year to year, making it risky to invest too much longterm in acquiring them. Instead, some clubs like Boston accumulate more-affordable rehabbing veterans and hope that just one emerges as reliable.

If one doesn't, and the Red Sox have a team good enough to warrant it, they should use resources to land a better option mid-season. At least the front office and coaching staff have an edge, since guys in charge -- Breslow and Bailey -- were once pretty good big league relievers.

 

The closer by committee lasted like 2 months before the acquisition of Byung Hyun Kim.  In that time it blew 3 ninth inning leads, resulting in 2 losses.  The closer wasn’t the issue.  A bullpen full of bad/mediocre pitchers was the bigger issue, and probably there was a Grady Little factor.

Im pretty sure bullpen pitchers having defined roles is up to the pitcher.  Some probably do need them, but others probably want to just pitch and get hitters out without caring about the game situation…

[Hitch]

We blew 17 saves after the all star game last year. When a guy has a good to great record at closing, you should spend cash on him. Having a guy who can pitch under the biggest pressure night in night out is worth the outlay/risk. 

[Bellhorn04]

21 minutes ago, Hitch said:

We blew 17 saves after the all star game last year. When a guy has a good to great record at closing, you should spend cash on him. Having a guy who can pitch under the biggest pressure night in night out is worth the outlay/risk. 

David Robertson fits the bill, and is for some reason still available.

[Hitch]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

David Robertson fits the bill, and is for some reason still available.

Yes, curious that he is. Makes me think there are maybe health worries with him. He'd suit a lot of teams at a decent price and yet he remains unsigned...

[mvp 78]

46 minutes ago, notin said:

The closer by committee lasted like 2 months before the acquisition of Byung Hyun Kim.  In that time it blew 3 ninth inning leads, resulting in 2 losses.  The closer wasn’t the issue.  A bullpen full of bad/mediocre pitchers was the bigger issue, and probably there was a Grady Little factor.

Im pretty sure bullpen pitchers having defined roles is up to the pitcher.  Some probably do need them, but others probably want to just pitch and get hitters out without caring about the game situation…

Yup.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

David Robertson fits the bill, and is for some reason still available.

Maybe he's holding out for the right offer or will just retire? He's his own agent, so that's why we probably aren't hearing breaking news about him every few days 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, notin said:

The closer by committee lasted like 2 months before the acquisition of Byung Hyun Kim.  In that time it blew 3 ninth inning leads, resulting in 2 losses.  The closer wasn’t the issue.  A bullpen full of bad/mediocre pitchers was the bigger issue, and probably there was a Grady Little factor.

Im pretty sure bullpen pitchers having defined roles is up to the pitcher.  Some probably do need them, but others probably want to just pitch and get hitters out without caring about the game situation…

The '03 bullpen was certainly an issue -- to those in charge of the Red Sox, at least. It's ultimately the reason Grady lost his mind and the pennant, but the front office scrambled all year.

Otherwise, Epstein doesn't acquire Kim, the guy who was famous for blowing two World Series leads to the Yankees after the 7th inning by serving up three home runs. And when Boston decided they couldn't trust Kim, either, the Sox got Scott Williamson at the trade deadline.

Kim only pitched two-thirds of an inning in the postseason, but Little used Williamson in all five games in the ALDS.

Then Scott saved all three wins in the ALCS, giving up only one hit. And then the Red Sox took a 3-run lead into the 8th inning of Game Seven, and had Timlin and Embree ready -- both had 0.00 ERAs in five games each in the Series -- and then... WHAT THE----

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Then Scott saved all three wins in the ALCS, giving up only one hit. And then the Red Sox took a 3-run lead into the 8th inning of Game Seven, and then... WHAT THE----

Which reportedly inspired John Henry, watching in the stands, to the best line of his career as a baseball owner: "Can I fire him right now?"

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Which reportedly inspired John Henry, watching in the stands, to the best line of his career as a baseball owner: "Can I fire him right now?"

I know, just edited the post and added this: "And then the Red Sox took a 3-run lead into the 8th inning of Game Seven, and had Timlin and Embree ready -- both had 0.00 ERAs in five games each in the Series"

I just don't want the Sox to have to bounce from one closer to the next every six weeks or so -- history shows it boggles the braintrust.

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Closer By Committee -- that one directly affected a season on the field.

Bullpens know the value of identifying roles, and having a lights-out closer. A trustworthy closer is so important, because a mediocre one who blows games in the 9th -- or just can't find the plate half the time -- can cause distress and utter gloom for both teammates and fans. 

The problem GMs and CBOs face is that most relievers are inconsistent from year to year, making it risky to invest too much longterm in acquiring them. Instead, some clubs like Boston accumulate more-affordable rehabbing veterans and hope that just one emerges as reliable.

If one doesn't, and the Red Sox have a team good enough to warrant it, they should use resources to land a better option mid-season. At least the front office and coaching staff have an edge, since guys in charge -- Breslow and Bailey -- were once pretty good big league relievers.

 

Why wait to midseason?

The window has been opened, and we are spending big on several one year or opt-out year deals.

While depth is a great thing to have, especially on a team known for having so many injuries, we have so much duplicated value that I feel we can afford to risk trading some depth to fix our weakest areas:

1. Closer

2. Catcher (mostly on defense) A nice big RHB catcher would be a dream come true.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, notin said:

The closer by committee lasted like 2 months before the acquisition of Byung Hyun Kim.  In that time it blew 3 ninth inning leads, resulting in 2 losses.  The closer wasn’t the issue.  A bullpen full of bad/mediocre pitchers was the bigger issue, and probably there was a Grady Little factor.

Im pretty sure bullpen pitchers having defined roles is up to the pitcher.  Some probably do need them, but others probably want to just pitch and get hitters out without caring about the game situation…

The claim of "closer by committee" was not really ever the reality. The reality was we had a sucky closer.

I was at that opening day game in Tampa in '03, when Chad Fox imploded.

The next game, Howry blew the save in the 8th, but that was not in a "closer" role. The game went 16, and Brandon Lyon pitched the last 3 innings to get the win- again, no real closer role occured in that game, unless they yanked Lyon after 2 IP. (There were not many RP options.)

Game 3: Chad Fox got the save.

Game 6: Fox came into the 1-1 game in the 9th and got the loss.

Game 12 was the next save situation, but it was Wake in a 2 IP situation. I guess you could call this part of some committee set-up, but so far, it was Chad Fox or long men getting the save chances. Same with game 13, where Timlin pitched 2 innings, blew the save, but got the win, when the Sox scored in the bottom of the 9th.

Game 14 was a switch. Fox pitched the 8th (got the win) and Lyon pitched the 9th for the save. To me, this was the first evidence of a "committee." in action not words.

Game 18 saw Timlin pitch the final 2 innings for the save. I guess you could call these 2-3 IP saves a "committee," but this was not really the traditional closer role.

Game 20: It was Fox, again for a 1 IP closer save.

Game 23: Fox for a 1.1 IP save.

Game 25: Fox with a BS, and later in extra innings, Jason Shiell got the save.

Game 27: Fox was available, but they went with Lyon, who let 2 runners on base, so Embree came in for the last out and the save. This game was when the switch was made, and looked like a hodge-podge "committee" type set-up. Lyon became the closer.

Game 28: Lyon with the save.

Game 32 : Lyon blew the save and got the loss.

34,  36 & 38: Lyon save

42: Timlin blew the game in the 8th and Lyon got racked in the 9th.

45: Lyon saves v NYY

52: Lyon got the loss in 1.1 IP (Sox score 5 in the 8th and 9th to tie v NYY)

60: Lyon pitched 2 IP and got the win, but Timlin pitched the 9th for the save, as the Sox scored 2 in the top of the 9th.

62: Lyon got the loss after coming in in a tie game in the 9th.

65 & 69: Lyon saves

71: Lyon got the win

72: extra innings- Shiell BS and then Seanez BS

74: Timlin save

77: Lyon 2 IP save

80; Lyon BS (4 runs)

81: Lyon save in 11th

82: Kim save (lyon unavailable)

83; Lyon BS in 1.1 IP & Timlin loss

87: Kim BS

88: KIm save and becomes the FT closer.

I see 2003 as not a "closer by committee," ever. It was Chad Fox, who failed. Then, it was Lyon, who failed. Then Kim won the job and held it the rest of the year.

 

[mvp 78]

24 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I see 2003 as not a "closer by committee," ever. It was Chad Fox, who failed. Then, it was Lyon, who failed. Then Kim won the job and held it the rest of the year.

 

It wasn't a true "closer by committee" but I could see similar results from '25 to what we had in '23. There could be a hot potato with the closer role. 

[moonslav59]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

It wasn't a true "closer by committee" but I could see similar results from '25 to what we had in '23. There could be a hot potato with the closer role. 

Agreed. We could end up "cycling" through 3-4 pitchers and still not find one that does well enough. Each one that fails means we are losing winnable games, and we cannot afford too many of those and still make the playoffs.

IMO, the 4 candidates for closer, Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten and Whitlock, all would look like very nice set-up men, and having 4 is a luxury not many teams have. Using one as a closer, lessens that number to 3 and forces Wink or Wilson into a higher leverage role than I like.

The problem is, I don't really see Robertson or Finnegan as a sure solution, either. They would just make it 5 guys trying out for the closer role, not 4. 5 is better than 4, and it would add one more quality set-up man and squeeze out our #8 RP'er, but we really need to trade for a lockdown closer to get one, at this point.

I see the odds of that happening as less than 1%, before opening day. Maybe we get one  at the deadline, if it's not too late, by then.

[mvp 78]

Also, 49th happy birthday to Scott Williamson! 🎂🎉🎁⚾

In typical TS fashion, we are talking about you in a Bregman thread! 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Agreed. We could end up "cycling" through 3-4 pitchers and still not find one that does well enough. Each one that fails means we are losing winnable games, and we cannot afford too many of those and still make the playoffs.

IMO, the 4 candidates for closer, Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten and Whitlock, all would look like very nice set-up men, and having 4 is a luxury not many teams have. Using one as a closer, lessens that number to 3 and forces Wink or Wilson into a higher leverage role than I like.

The problem is, I don't really see Robertson or Finnegan as a sure solution, either. They would just make it 5 guys trying out for the closer role, not 4. 5 is better than 4, and it would add one more quality set-up man and squeeze out our #8 RP'er, but we really need to trade for a lockdown closer to get one, at this point.

I see the odds of that happening as less than 1%, before opening day. Maybe we get one  at the deadline, if it's not too late, by then.

The Dodgers and Yankees both had 'closer issues' last year.  Save leaders Phillips and Holmes had both lost the closer job by playoff time.

Having a reliable Mr. Lockdown is nice, but it's not a make or break thing.

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Dodgers and Yankees both had 'closer issues' last year.  Save leaders Phillips and Holmes had both lost the closer job by playoff time.

Having a reliable Mr. Lockdown is nice, but it's not a make or break thing.

True, but my tendency is to focus on our weakest link on paper and hope we can upgrade. To me it is closer, followed by Catcher defense and then a true big RHB. (Bregman has great Fenway numbers and a lot of other qualities, but he has struggled v LHPs, recently.)

I think we are good enough to challenge for a playoff slot, as is. I could see us finishing with the second best record in the AL- maybe best, with great health and a confluence of good years by nearly everyone, but I could also see us finishing out of the playoffs. Hell, some projections have us last in the ALE, even after adding Bregman.

It seems, to me, we have attempted to open the window for 2025. We have added a ton of money for 2025 and 2025, alone, especially if you consider Bregman could opt out. Buehler, Chapman, Bregman, Wilson add up to a boatload of cash. Gio, Hendriks & Ref have one year left and add up to a considerable total of cash. Why not take one more step to help increase the odds we make a run for it in '25?

Trade for a closer or big bat/good glove catcher and set ourselves up as a top 2-3 favorite in the AL and maybe top 5 in MLB?

Maybe, I'm being a homer in thinking we are 1 -2 players away from being that highly favored, but my gut says we are. (BTW, my gut has been wrong more than right, even for winning seasons like 2013 and 2021.)

[notin]

3 hours ago, Hitch said:

Yes, curious that he is. Makes me think there are maybe health worries with him. He'd suit a lot of teams at a decent price and yet he remains unsigned...

My theory is - holding out for a chance at a ring, otherwise he just retires.  He hasn’t won anything since 2009, and back then he was just Mariano Rivera’s understudy…

[notin]

27 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It wasn't a true "closer by committee" but I could see similar results from '25 to what we had in '23. There could be a hot potato with the closer role. 

We do have two experienced (ok, possibly TOO experienced) closers in the bullpen.  But swapping out closers mid-stream is hardly a death knell for anyone…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

10 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Dodgers and Yankees both had 'closer issues' last year.  Save leaders Phillips and Holmes had both lost the closer job by playoff time.

Having a reliable Mr. Lockdown is nice, but it's not a make or break thing.

Agreed... but a guy doesn't have to be a total bust like Gagne to give fans agita.

And I'm not even talking about Kimbrel in the '18 postseason. 

I still have PTSD from just watching Franklin Morales throw pitches all over the place in one outing in the '13 playoffs.

[notin]

4 hours ago, Hitch said:

We blew 17 saves after the all star game last year. When a guy has a good to great record at closing, you should spend cash on him. Having a guy who can pitch under the biggest pressure night in night out is worth the outlay/risk. 

Misleading.

 

Most blown saves occur in innings before the ninth inning, as there is no Blown Hold stat.

Now the 2024 team did have a horrible bullpen stretch after the All Star break that included blowing multiple run leads in the ninth inning or later.   But quite a few of those 17 blown saves were in the 6-8th innings…

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

We do have two experienced (ok, possibly TOO experienced) closers in the bullpen.  But swapping out closers mid-stream is hardly a death knell for anyone…

Not a death knell, but could knock down the win totals from 90 win to 85. 

[notin]

23 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Dodgers and Yankees both had 'closer issues' last year.  Save leaders Phillips and Holmes had both lost the closer job by playoff time.

Having a reliable Mr. Lockdown is nice, but it's not a make or break thing.

Holmes lost the job outright to a pitcher with 0 closer experience, which might serve as a reminder about how important that part of the role is. (Slaten? Whitlock?) But Phillips was always just holding down the fort for Treinen. He didn’t really lose it…

[mvp 78]

😣

[notin]

13 minutes ago, notin said:

Misleading.

 

Most blown saves occur in innings before the ninth inning, as there is no Blown Hold stat.

Now the 2024 team did have a horrible bullpen stretch after the All Star break that included blowing multiple run leads in the ninth inning or later.   But quite a few of those 17 blown saves were in the 6-8th innings…

Also not every blown save is a loss.  The Sox did lose their fair share of those games, but did they lose all 17?

[notin]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

😣

Raffy learned English?  Maybe just that one phrase?

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

Also not every blown save is a loss.  The Sox did lose their fair share of those games, but did they lose all 17?

Did closers blow 17 games last season??? I don't remember that. I'm specifically talking about closers blowing it at the very end.