Article: Even if the Red Sox are Buyers, These Players Could be on the Move

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Since he traded Devers, claimed it wouldn’t derail the season, and was right, I find it hard to believe Chapman is untouchable…

Did Chapman accidentally ignore Breslow on group text once? If so, he may be out of a job tomorrow. 

[mvp 78]

57 minutes ago, notin said:

I think if you trade Chapman, you need to replace him internally.  A closer that “isn’t 37” and has additional control likely costs as much or more in prospects than the Sox will get for Chapman,  making it at best a break even on the “gold mine.”   Unless the new closer sucks, I suppose…

There isn't an internal candidate that is ready for THIS season. Maybe one that could be developed for future seasons. 

[mvp 78]

29 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Bad parallel IMHO.  They only traded Devers because of attitude issues.  Chapman's attitude has been superb.

🔫

[notin]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

There isn't an internal candidate that is ready for THIS season. Maybe one that could be developed for future seasons. 

So if Chapman gets hurt in August, season over?

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

So if Chapman gets hurt in August, season over?

I don't think the season is cancelled, but it gets immeasurably harder. 

Unlike you, I don't believe in Hicks at all. I wouldn't let that guy pitch outside of low leverage situations. Aside from Whitlock, I'm not sure who I'd want to pitch in the 9th. That's Cora's problem though. 

[notin]

26 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Did Chapman accidentally ignore Breslow on group text once? If so, he may be out of a job tomorrow. 

And this man gets to walk free among us!?????!

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

And this man gets to walk free among us!?????!

Shouldn't be allowed TBH. Heard he struck out Sam at the company picnic and stared him down afterwards. 🤬

[notin]

27 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't think the season is cancelled, but it gets immeasurably harder. 

Unlike you, I don't believe in Hicks at all. I wouldn't let that guy pitch outside of low leverage situations. Aside from Whitlock, I'm not sure who I'd want to pitch in the 9th. That's Cora's problem though. 

For his career, Hicks’ numbers are pretty much the same across all leverage situations defined by B-R.  He is only slightly better as a reliever than a starter, but he does have more career IP as a reliever. And his second best ERA comes in the 9th inning, substantially better than in the 7th and 8th.  His 2nd inning ERA is his best, which is actually kind of odd.

He has 35 career saves and 13 career blown saves.  Blown save numbers can be misleading, but the bulk of them came his rookie year (2018) when he was closing.

I think he’s adequate, but it would be nice to have better arms behind him…

[notin]

51 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

And you know better than to compare the WAR of an everyday player to that of a reliever who pitches 60 innings or so.

Chapman, Whitlock, Weissert, J Wilson and Bernardino have a combined bWAR of 4.2. 

Trading them for 3 everyday players with a total bWAR of 4.3 would not be smart. 

 

 

Is this your version of the “WAR undervalued closers” argument?  The counter argument is fans overvalue closers.

That Chapman only pitches 60 innings is why he actually is less important than the best hitter in the lineup. The one charged with getting him leads to protect.

And Chapman’s innings won’t be the”most important” either.  Some sites used to track “tough saves”, saves where the closer comes in with the tying run on base.  They almost never happen.  The league leader usually had like 4.

Trading Devers - who did have a bad attitude - was a bigger blow to this lineup than dealing Chapman would be. I don’t see how you can say otherwise…

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

For his career, Hicks’ numbers are pretty much the same across all leverage situations defined by B-R.  He is only slightly better as a reliever than a starter, but he does have more career IP as a reliever. And his second best ERA comes in the 9th inning, substantially better than in the 7th and 8th.  His 2nd inning ERA is his best, which is actually kind of odd.

He has 35 career saves and 13 career blown saves.  Blown save numbers can be misleading, but the bulk of them came his rookie year (2018) when he was closing.

I think he’s adequate, but it would be nice to have better arms behind him…

I'm not sure I care about Hicks's career numbers at this point. Right now, he's just not putting together the same performance he once did. This year, his low leverage numbers are far better than his medium or high leverage numbers. 

He just doesn't profile as a late inning guy to me. At one point in his career, he did. 

[mvp 78]

Just now, notin said:

Is this your version of the “WAR undervalued closers” argument?  The counter argument is fans overvalue closers.

That Chapman only pitches 60 innings is why he actually is less important than the best hitter in the lineup. The one charged with getting him leads to protect.

And Chapman’s innings won’t be the”most important” either.  Some sites used to track “tough saves”, saves where the closer comes in with the tying run on base.  They almost never happen.  The league leader usually had like 4.

Trading Devers - who did have a bad attitude - was a bigger blow to this lineup than dealing Chapman would be. I don’t see how you can say otherwise…

How'd it work out for them in 2003 when they didn't have a guy they could just throw out there and rely on to get saves? Was that full season enjoyable for everyone? Was the bullpen put together thoughtfully? Were we confident about it going into the playoffs? 

[Bellhorn04]

17 minutes ago, notin said:

Is this your version of the “WAR undervalued closers” argument?  The counter argument is fans overvalue closers.

That Chapman only pitches 60 innings is why he actually is less important than the best hitter in the lineup. The one charged with getting him leads to protect.

And Chapman’s innings won’t be the”most important” either.  Some sites used to track “tough saves”, saves where the closer comes in with the tying run on base.  They almost never happen.  The league leader usually had like 4.

Trading Devers - who did have a bad attitude - was a bigger blow to this lineup than dealing Chapman would be. I don’t see how you can say otherwise…

How about that 5 for 3 trade I mentioned?  I'd like to hear your response to that.  

Forget about the closer thing.  Chapman is a great reliever.  And Cora has been using him prior to the 9th when the situation warrants it.

[notin]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

How'd it work out for them in 2003 when they didn't have a guy they could just throw out there and rely on to get saves? Was that full season enjoyable for everyone? Was the bullpen put together thoughtfully? Were we confident about it going into the playoffs? 

That whole bullpen had plenty of issues.  Before acquiring Kim (all but forgotten in the postseason) the Sox only blew 4 ninth inning leads, resulting in 3 losses.   Through 54 games this year, Chapman had 2 losses (although both games were tied when he entered).

2003 was not so much a bad closer as a horrible bullpen that failed much more often in the 7th and 8th  innings…

[notin]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

How about that 5 for 3 trade I mentioned?  I'd like to hear your response to that.  

Forget about the closer thing.  Chapman is a great reliever.  And Cora has been using him prior to the 9th when the situation warrants it.

What about that trade?  Trading good relievers for bad position players doesn’t mean WAR undervalues relievers.

Simple question - why was trading Devers not a white flag but trading Chapman is? Let’s not lose sight of where this started…

[Bellhorn04]

8 minutes ago, notin said:

What about that trade?  Trading good relievers for bad position players doesn’t mean WAR undervalues relievers.

Simple question - why was trading Devers not a white flag but trading Chapman is? Let’s not lose sight of where this started…

Well, some people did consider trading Devers a white flag, I realize that.

The difference is we have a bunch of hitters who are doing well and have made up for the loss of Devers.  Bregman, Duran, Rafaela, Abreu, Anthony, Story, Narvaez, Ref & Romy.

We do not have a bunch of guys who can make up for losing Chapman.

This is pretty obvious stuff.

 

[drewski6]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

What about that trade?  Trading good relievers for bad position players doesn’t mean WAR undervalues relievers.

Simple question - why was trading Devers not a white flag but trading Chapman is? Let’s not lose sight of where this started…

Because its not "or" its Devers vs both.

Its also a large on the "why"

You are trading your best rp who has been a lights out closer at the deadline, when previously having shown shades of throwing in the towel, and why are you doing this if not to punt?

If you are that concerned about hoarding prospects you arent actually trying to win in 2025 and you will fall out of it, like we keep doing.

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Who? You are going to spend MORE assets to get that closer at the deadline than to just acquire them in the offseason. This is an unreasonable strategy. Rearranging deck chairs to spend more assets to potentially put a worse product on the field. 

Just run it out with Chapman. Sign a FA closer. Trade for another late inning reliever that you can develop into the future closer. 

Most likely they add a good arm to the pen not expected to close.  Someone like Louis Varland, Kevin Ginkel, Calvin Faucher.  Maybe the return of John Schreiber.   I think someone to take some workload away from Whitlock, Weissert and Bernardino is the goal…

[notin]

15 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, some people did consider trading Devers a white flag, I realize that.

The difference is we have a bunch of hitters who are doing well and have made up for the loss of Devers.  Bregman, Duran, Rafaela, Abreu, Anthony, Story, Narvaez, Ref & Romy.

We do not have a bunch of guys who can make up for losing Chapman.

This is pretty obvious stuff.

 

Apparently not as obvious as you think.

Before trading Devers, the Sox averaged 4.84 runs per game.  Since the trade, they are averaging 3.83 runs per game.   It’s not hitters picking up the slack.  The improvement has been the pitching…

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

Apparently not as obvious as you think.

Before trading Devers, the Sox averaged 4.84 runs per game.  Since the trade, they are averaging 3.83 runs per game.   It’s not hitters picking up the slack.  The improvement has been the pitching…

We're averaging 4.88 runs right now so there's something wrong with your numbers.

We're 4th in MLB in runs per game, I'm pretty sure that's the highest we've been.

You'd also have to look at the pitching we've been facing to analyze it properly.

You're not making much of a case.

 

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

Apparently not as obvious as you think.

Before trading Devers, the Sox averaged 4.84 runs per game.  Since the trade, they are averaging 3.83 runs per game.   It’s not hitters picking up the slack.  The improvement has been the pitching…

Now show me SF

[drewski6]

I think the convo right now is if trading Chapman counts as white flag.  It depends on what else we do.

I lean towards yes, because who wants him that badly, so I think the reason why you would trade him is to not want to part with prospects.  And that doesnt feel like a real effort to me.

But its possible that a team insists and dangles something that more than compensates. And then we go get another closer.  But like Bellhorn and I were saying, the economics of that are murky at best.  Because it would imply that we can replace Chapman for cheap, and therefore we should flip him. Dont flip prospects to get whatever you are flipping chapman for, instead flip chapman and then flip prospects to replace chapman. Therefore we wind up better on all fronts.  And its like if there are just as good pitchers available for cheaper why would our initial dance partner (getting chap) just bark up that tree?

Its hard for me to see how it would go down flipping chapman, but having a net of buy.  This whole buy-sell is mostly just selling disguised.

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

I think the convo right now is if trading Chapman counts as white flag.  It depends on what else we do.

I lean towards yes, because who wants him that badly, so I think the reason why you would trade him is to not want to part with prospects.  And that doesnt feel like a real effort to me.

But its possible that a team insists and dangles something that more than compensates. And then we go get another closer.  But like Bellhorn and I were saying, the economics of that are murky at best.  Because it would imply that we can replace Chapman for cheap, and therefore we should flip him. Dont flip prospects to get whatever you are flipping chapman for, instead flip chapman and then flip prospects to replace chapman. Therefore we wind up better on all fronts.  And its like if there are just as good pitchers available for cheaper why would our initial dance partner (getting chap) just bark up that tree?

Its hard for me to see how it would go down flipping chapman, but having a net of buy.  This whole buy-sell is mostly just selling disguised.

or at least disguised non-buying.

And if we do that Breslow is Bloom and Boom is Breslow.  

[mvp 78]

24 minutes ago, notin said:

Most likely they add a good arm to the pen not expected to close.  Someone like Louis Varland, Kevin Ginkel, Calvin Faucher.  Maybe the return of John Schreiber.   I think someone to take some workload away from Whitlock, Weissert and Bernardino is the goal…

I'm hopeful that Chapman stays healthy and that they add a guy similar to the profile noted above. That's probably more important than finding a fifth starter or even my preferred back up catcher. 

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

We're averaging 4.88 runs right now so there's something wrong with your numbers.

We're 4th in MLB in runs per game, I'm pretty sure that's the highest we've been.

You'd also have to look at the pitching we've been facing to analyze it properly.

You're not making much of a case.

 

I believe it's 4.97 since the Devers trade and 4.84 prior. bREF hasn't updated since last night, but I added it in. 4.88 overall. 

[dgalehouse]

The looming deadline is causing an undue amount of stress on the fanbase if some of the comments and suggestions are to be taken seriously. There is no fork in the road this year. Go full speed ahead. Do NOT trade Duran, Chapman or Bregman. Try to improve the team. And always, always, always play to win. This really should go without saying. 

[Soxlover]

The only key player I see us trading is an OFer perhaps a three way deal, hopefully for pitching.

i do t consider DHam, Grissom, Toro or some of our pen arms “key.”

[TedYazPapiMookie]

5 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Trading Teel for Crochet was a huge mistake?  

Trading Teel was a huge mistake.  Mayer would have made more sense long term.  He's hurt all the time, he had higher trade value so we could have cut back in other areas of the trade and our future Varitek wouldn't be playing in Chicago.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Trading Teel was a huge mistake.  Mayer would have made more sense long term.  He's hurt all the time, he had higher trade value so we could have cut back in other areas of the trade and our future Varitek wouldn't be playing in Chicago.

We don't know if the ChiSox would have accepted Mayer instead of Teel. Just saying "they should have sent Mayer instead" doesn't always work out. To me, you do whatever you can to get an ace. 

[Soxlover]

It was a great trade and extension.

Teel is an unknown. 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

34 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

We don't know if the ChiSox would have accepted Mayer instead of Teel. Just saying "they should have sent Mayer instead" doesn't always work out. To me, you do whatever you can to get an ace. 

I agree but based on hype, I see no reason Mayer would have been worth less unless their analytics group is just much better than most teams.  Maybe they had insight into Teel's personality and other intangibles.  Smart move by Chicago.  They had Quero and still did the trade expecting Teel to be the future catcher.