Red Sox 2025 Starting Rotation

[notin]

19 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Merrill Kelly should be available. He's 36 and a free agent this winter, so shouldn't cost a ton.

A lot of mileage on his arm, but once again leads the NL in starts this season (tied with Gallen, also soon to be free, but at age 29 will cost more prospects).

Kelly has a 2.9 WAR, and can pitch in October: two years ago he made four postseason starts with a 2.25 ERA.

Will Gallen and his 0.2 bWAR really cost more than Kelly?

Both are 2 month rentals, so age isnt really a factor.  Gallen is having a horrible year interrupted by the occasional good outing.  Not sure if he can bounce back in two months.  Expensive or not, avoid!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

13 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

A more realistic and disappointing option for sure. He'd be fine (Jake Peavy-ish), but fans are greedy.

Kelly is better than a #5; only five NL starters have more IP, and only six have a better WHIP.

[Hugh2]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Hasn't lived up to expectations? What? 

Expectations for Fitts was a 4-5 starter at his peak. Coming into the season, he was fighting for the 5th spot. Seems to be that's what he is. 

Very superficial compared to my overall point of plenty of pitchers going down this year.  I didn't mean to imply that Dick Fitts had some high expectations.   

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

8 minutes ago, notin said:

Will Gallen and his 0.2 bWAR really cost more than Kelly?

Both are 2 month rentals, so age isnt really a factor.  Gallen is having a horrible year interrupted by the occasional good outing.  Not sure if he can bounce back in two months.  Expensive or not, avoid!

You're right -- I was thinking Gallen would cost more in free agency because of his age and three years getting Cy Young votes. But this season Kelly is better, and the Red Sox need someone who is good now.

[Soxlover]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Half the pitchers in the league are coming off injuries.  The other half are heading towards them.  
 

I get passing on Alcantara.  And Cabrera.  But at some point, the Sox are going to have to take some sort of risk.  Just preferably not a Buehler level risk…

Agreed. Half are and we go them 90%!

[Nick]

5 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

Also is it really Tanner Houcks fault? I'm not sure how he put us in a "bad spot" like he pitched bad and got hurt with malice. 

Also, what about Richard Fitts who hasn't quite lived up to expectations and got hurt, Crawford who got hurt, Now Dobbins got hurt, and Buehler who has not lived up to expectations.  Maybe I missed interpreted the comment but I'm not really sure how Houck has put us in a bad spot.  

I also haven't 100% ruled out that Houck comes back and really helps us down the stretch, if not in the rotation then in the bullpen. 

Are you serious? Look at the stats. He was our ACE 1st half and most of last season.

He was NOT hurt when when he was pitching. 

Kutter was hurt at the start of the season. 

You and I really don't have much to talk about on Houck issue.....damn glad we didn't extend them last year.

[Larry Cook]

23 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You mean like over the last 4 weeks?

0.83 Giolito

2.18 Bello

2.18 Crochet (not counting today)

4 good weeks does not guarantee anybody a playoff spot!!!

[Maxbialystock]

2 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

4 good weeks does not guarantee anybody a playoff spot!!!

You mean that?  You really, really that?  Well, if you do, I'll just have to write it down--and throw it away.

Nobody but nobody on talksox right now is guaranteeing anything with respect to the postseason.  Some of us are hopeful, me probably longer than anyone else.

By the way, just out of curiosity.  When starters do well for 4 weeks are we supposed to say, "means absolutely nothing because their elbows or something else could go bad, or they could just stop pitching well?"  

 

 

[Larry Cook]

43 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

You mean that?  You really, really that?  Well, if you do, I'll just have to write it down--and throw it away.

Nobody but nobody on talksox right now is guaranteeing anything with respect to the postseason.  Some of us are hopeful, me probably longer than anyone else.

By the way, just out of curiosity.  When starters do well for 4 weeks are we supposed to say, "means absolutely nothing because their elbows or something else could go bad, or they could just stop pitching well?"  

we are suppose to congratulate them and hope their success continues!!!!

[moonslav59]

10 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Merrill Kelly should be available. He's 36 and a free agent this winter, so shouldn't cost a ton.

A lot of mileage on his arm, but once again leads the NL in starts this season (tied with Gallen, also soon to be free, but at age 29 will cost more prospects).

Kelly has a 2.9 WAR, and can pitch in October: two years ago he made four postseason starts with a 2.25 ERA.

I'd rather just hope for Sandoval, Houck, or Criswell to step in.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

4 good weeks does not guarantee anybody a playoff spot!!!

No, not at all, but adding and ace is no guarantee, either.

Also, some of these guys have been good for much longer than 4 weeks. Bello has one bad start and was under 2.90 before and after that start. Gio goes back like 6 starts.

I'm all for getting a solid #2, just not a rental for a top 10 prospect.

[moonslav59]

I like the Mitch Keller idea, if we don't have to give up a top prospect. 

Zac Gallen might be possible.

[Duran Is The Man]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I like the Mitch Keller idea, if we don't have to give up a top prospect. 

Zac Gallen might be possible.

i'm not sure he's worthy of a top prospect.

 

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i'm not sure he's worthy of a top prospect.

 

Mullins, Paez & Cespedes for 2 months of Galen (and playoffs?)

Maybe sub Bleis for one?

 

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Mullins, Paez & Cespedes for 2 months of Galen (and playoffs?)

Maybe sub Bleis for one?

 

Ewwww...

 

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Ewwww...

 

Probably heard comments like this when we traded similar prospects for Schwarber and Nate.

People talk badly about Luis Garcia and Lucas Sims, as they should, but at the time of those trades, they were decent pitchers.

Sims: 3.10 the previous season (61 IP) & 3.57 after 35 IP, before we got him for

Garcia: 3.24 in '21, 3.39 in '22, then 4.07 and was at 3.71, when we got him for M Lugo (13th ranked by sp.com), Zeferjahn & Kavadas for Ovis Portes (29th ranked)

Those two were picked up with a #13 and #29 and scraps. What can we get with a...

#7 Tibbs & #17 Paez?

#13 Bleis & #21 Uberstine?

#16 Cespedes, #19 Jordan & #23 Mullins?

Or add/sub in

24 Castro, 26 Wehunt or 31 Monegro

If anyone wants a 40 man guy, we can offer:

Wong (if we add a catcher)

DHam, Sogard or Grissom

Kelly or Guerrero-assuming we are getting a pitcher(s)

I'm very hesitant to trade anyone not listed here for a rental. (Maybe I missed a few names plus players lower ranked than Monegro.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

11 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'd rather just hope for Sandoval, Houck, or Criswell to step in.

Nope -- we've been waiting for rehabs and retreads to step in all decade. 

If this Red Sox team is going for it, they need to acquire talented reinforcements.

One of the reasons Devers was traded may have been because he told the CBO to do his job and get a first basemen -- but what people forget is that it wasn't the first time Raffy spouted off. He also said Breslow should do his job and get pitching before last summer's deadline. 

Somehow, I don't think Devers meant a few has-been relievers at the last minute, either...

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Nope -- we've been waiting for rehabs and retreads to step in all decade. 

If this Red Sox team is going for it, they need to acquire talented reinforcements.

One of the reasons Devers was traded may have been because he told the CBO to do his job and get a first basemen -- but what people forget is that it wasn't the first time Raffy spouted off. He also said Breslow should do his job and get pitching before last summer's deadline. 

Somehow, I don't think Devers meant a few has-been relievers at the last minute, either...

A bigger NOPE on Merrill Kelly, if we have to trade a top prospect for the soon to be 37 year old rental.

I'm not for trusting it on 3 rehab guys, either. I'm for going bigger and bolder for someone as good or better than Kelly, but with more control years.

Duran or Abreu plus maybe Arias or Romero and 1-2 prospects below #10 or 11 in our rankings. Maybe involve a thirst team, but get it done!

[mvp 78]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Probably heard comments like this when we traded similar prospects for Schwarber and Nate.

Schwarber and Eovaldi were one for one deals. You're proposing dealing three prospects for Zac Gallen. 

Schwarber prior to the trade: 1.6 fWAR, 137 wRC+ (I don't think ANYONE was upset about the trade as long as he was able to come back healthy)

Eovaldi prior to the trade: 0.7 fWAR, 57 IP, 8.37 K/9, career low 1.26 bb/9, 4.26 ERA (really had one blow up start on 7/13, but was completely serviceable for what they gave up even if it didn't work out)

Gallen is a worse pitcher in '25 than Eovaldi was with TB in '18. If they are giving up one prospect in the teens for him it's no big deal. Cespedes for Gallen? Fine. Paez, Mullins AND Cespedes for Gallen? NO! 

[moonslav59]

17 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Schwarber and Eovaldi were one for one deals. You're proposing dealing three prospects for Zac Gallen. 

Schwarber prior to the trade: 1.6 fWAR, 137 wRC+ (I don't think ANYONE was upset about the trade as long as he was able to come back healthy)

Eovaldi prior to the trade: 0.7 fWAR, 57 IP, 8.37 K/9, career low 1.26 bb/9, 4.26 ERA (really had one blow up start on 7/13, but was completely serviceable for what they gave up even if it didn't work out)

Gallen is a worse pitcher in '25 than Eovaldi was with TB in '18. If they are giving up one prospect in the teens for him it's no big deal. Cespedes for Gallen? Fine. Paez, Mullins AND Cespedes for Gallen? NO! 

I'm fully aware of all this. (My offer was Cespedes, Jordan & Mullins, and I did not say for Gallen.

My point was we could make better offers than the ones we made for Luis Garcia, Lucas Sims and Schwarber-Nate, without losing a top 10-12 prospect. I'm okay with going large on these kind of deals, even if for a rental. I'm not for making all 3 of my suggested groupings for 3 rentals. We don't even have roster room for 3, unless one if fo the unlikely back-up catcher.

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Mullins, Paez & Cespedes for 2 months of Galen (and playoffs?)

Maybe sub Bleis for one?

???

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm fully aware of all this. (My offer was Cespedes, Jordan & Mullins, and I did not say for Gallen.

Wrong. 

[moonslav59]

8 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Wrong. 

You took out the question mark, why? Why intentionally copy and paste, then remove a key punctuation mark? It's deliberate.

I was responding to a post about needing to trade a top prospect for Gallen and offered a suggestion on how we might get him without losing a top prospect. I often suggest more than a site like BTV might accept, because I know I am a homer.

I wrote in one post about what we got for Beeks and Aldo vs what we might get for 3 decent prospects and how the 2025 combinations of prospects look better than the ones that got us Garcia & Sims. Here is that quote:

 

What can we get with a...

#7 Tibbs & #17 Paez?

#13 Bleis & #21 Uberstine?

#16 Cespedes, #19 Jordan & #23 Mullins?

My point is, we can do better than we did last year, because we have more to offer, and maybe we can find a deal like Schwarber or Nate, with a little luck or Brez magic.

I'm not sure I want to do it for a rental, but the offers I suggested are about as high as I'd go for any rental. I'd think long and hard about the 3 I listed, but I might do it. Gallen is not pitching well, now, but he was better than Nate for several years, recently. 

Mullins is Rule 5. I'm not sold on Jordan. I'm higher on Cespedes than you are,

I'd like to see us trade for Ryan.

 

 

[Larry Cook]

The twins have a reliever named Jax (I think) he throws a decent ball! Maybe he is the 8th inning guy we lacked with slaten blowing a gasket again!!!

[moonslav59]

1. Crochet (2.44 in league leading 20 GS and 129 IP)

2. Ryan (2.72 in 18 GS)

3. Giolito (0.70 last 6 starts)

4. Bello (2.33 ERA GS 1-5, then 2.69 in 10 starts from that May 18th bad game.)

5. Fitts>Sandoval

[Hitch]

5 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

1. Crochet (2.44 in league leading 20 GS and 129 IP)

2. Ryan (2.72 in 18 GS)

3. Giolito (0.70 last 6 starts)

4. Bello (2.33 ERA GS 1-5, then 2.69 in 10 starts from that May 18th bad game.)

5. Fitts>Sandoval

I look at that and I start believing in the play offs. Without it, I still see a hard time of it, even with the 10 game heater. 

I've been in sell mode most of the year, I've definitely been moved into 'okay, go for it' mode, but this next stretch is the most defining one of the season yet (feels like we say that a lot but this in undoubtedly that).

Either way, whatever way it goes, we have incredibly tantalising and sellable assets, or pieces to move to get us over the hump. Going to be exciting one way or another. 

[Hugh2]

On 7/14/2025 at 2:59 PM, Nick said:

Are you serious? Look at the stats. He was our ACE 1st half and most of last season.

He was NOT hurt when when he was pitching. 

Kutter was hurt at the start of the season. 

You and I really don't have much to talk about on Houck issue.....damn glad we didn't extend them last year.

lol, it’s not that big of a deal I think you mis interpreted me.  I don’t refute what Houck was and that he’s been disappointing this year, nor did I say he wasn’t an ace last year (more like 1/2 a year).
 

I just don’t think he put us is in a “really bad spot” like we had to rely on him to be an ace after a career of looking like a reliever putting together a half a really good season. Again, there were a lot of pitchers who have underperformed this year, I don’t think it’s partly any single one’s fault. 
 

you have 5 starters, and most teams end the season with 10 guys or more who have started games.  Injury vs. non injury is superficial to my point.

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You took out the question mark, why? Why intentionally copy and paste, then remove a key punctuation mark? It's deliberate.

 

I didn't. 🧐

[notin]

19 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Schwarber and Eovaldi were one for one deals. You're proposing dealing three prospects for Zac Gallen. 

Schwarber prior to the trade: 1.6 fWAR, 137 wRC+ (I don't think ANYONE was upset about the trade as long as he was able to come back healthy)

Eovaldi prior to the trade: 0.7 fWAR, 57 IP, 8.37 K/9, career low 1.26 bb/9, 4.26 ERA (really had one blow up start on 7/13, but was completely serviceable for what they gave up even if it didn't work out)

Gallen is a worse pitcher in '25 than Eovaldi was with TB in '18. If they are giving up one prospect in the teens for him it's no big deal. Cespedes for Gallen? Fine. Paez, Mullins AND Cespedes for Gallen? NO! 

Why is Gallen even coming up?  Has anyone seen the year he is having?

If for some reason the goal is to add a former NL West pitcher with an ERA over 5, let’s just keep Buehler…

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

Why is Gallen even coming up?  Has anyone seen the year he is having?

If for some reason the goal is to add a former NL West pitcher with an ERA over 5, let’s just keep Buehler…

Hee hee, good point...a couple of Buehler-like starts from Gallen, and Talksox would be hanging Breslow. 

I don't think we should give up on Buehler just yet, either.  I'm sure he's working hard with Bailey to fix the issues he's having.  Of course I'm not sure his much-repaired arm can do much about the issues...