Sox to acquire Sonny Gray

[notin]

3 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

Coming from you i know this is a no-win trick question but I would say it would be someone who can fill most of all or all of the following

1} pitch at least 160 innings with a sub 4.00 era

2} be effective against teams in the AL East

3} be cost controlled for at least 2-3 years

4} preferably but not a must that he be RH

I think this is more of a wishlist than a generic definition of a #2 starter, and it’s ok to have all of this on your wishlist.  Sensible, even.

But no definition of a #2 starter should exclude Tarik Skubal.  He should quite obviously rank higher than that.

Provably worth noting - only 30 pitchers had a sub-4.00 ERA and over 160 IP.  That might be closer to being the definition of a #1 starter…

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, notin said:

I think this is more of a wishlist than a generic definition of a #2 starter, and it’s ok to have all of this on your wishlist.  Sensible, even.

But no definition of a #2 starter should exclude Tarik Skubal.  He should quite obviously rank higher than that.

Provably worth noting - only 30 pitchers had a sub-4.00 ERA and over 160 IP.  That might be closer to being the definition of a #1 starter…

Being a righty, ERA of less than 4.00 with 160 IPs, good against the ALE, leaves us with only 7 choices.

The good news is that Bello had a 3.35, 162.2 IPs, is a righty, and has a 3.92 ERA against the ALE.  So it appears that we already have a #2.

[moonslav59]

34 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Being a righty, ERA of less than 4.00 with 160 IPs, good against the ALE, leaves us with only 7 choices.

The good news is that Bello had a 3.35, 162.2 IPs, is a righty, and has a 3.92 ERA against the ALE.  So it appears that we already have a #2.

It's hard to construct an accurate system to divide all of the top MLB SP'ers into 5 categories of 30 each.

To get a sample size of 150 pitchers (30 teams x 5 SP'ers) the sample size needs to be around 75 IP. If you use that, then you have some smaller sample pitchers that show up on the ERA, ERA+, ERA-, FIP and other non cumulative value stats leader boards, most likely undeservedly.

Since most #5 starters are interchangeable, maybe getting the sample size to 120 is best, and all the rest are #5's or better. This is flawed, too, for many of the same reasons. The sample size is 100 to get 120 pitchers, and someone going 100 IP vs someone else going 180-200+ IP is apples to oranges in many ways (unless you use something like fWAR, which accounts for longevity.)

Here is a look at the top 120 rankings:

fWAR: #1 Crochet (4) & Gray (20), #2 Bello (59) Gio was a #3 at 64 and nobody else had 120 IP.

ERA-: #1 Crochet (9) #2 Bello (31 is almost a #1) Gio was a high #2 (33) and Gray is a #3 at 77.

FIP: #1 Crochet (8) #1 Gray (21) High #3 Bello (62) & Gio (64)

Does this get us any closer to knowing if Gray or Bello should be called a #2, a #3 or something else?

Then, we have to try and project 2026 from past numbers: 1 year, 2 years, 3 years???

Geeeessh!

 

[Duran Is The Man]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's hard to construct an accurate system to divide all of the top MLB SP'ers into 5 categories of 30 each.

To get a sample size of 150 pitchers (30 teams x 5 SP'ers) the sample size needs to be around 75 IP. If you use that, then you have some smaller sample pitchers that show up on the ERA, ERA+, ERA-, FIP and other non cumulative value stats leader boards, most likely undeservedly.

Since most #5 starters are interchangeable, maybe getting the sample size to 120 is best, and all the rest are #5's or better. This is flawed, too, for many of the same reasons. The sample size is 100 to get 120 pitchers, and someone going 100 IP vs someone else going 180-200+ IP is apples to oranges in many ways (unless you use something like fWAR, which accounts for longevity.)

Here is a look at the top 120 rankings:

fWAR: #1 Crochet (4) & Gray (20), #2 Bello (59) Gio was a #3 at 64 and nobody else had 120 IP.

ERA-: #1 Crochet (9) #2 Bello (31 is almost a #1) Gio was a high #2 (33) and Gray is a #3 at 77.

FIP: #1 Crochet (8) #1 Gray (21) High #3 Bello (62) & Gio (64)

Does this get us any closer to knowing if Gray or Bello should be called a #2, a #3 or something else?

Then, we have to try and project 2026 from past numbers: 1 year, 2 years, 3 years???

Geeeessh!

 

i know it's not the most fashionable stat du jour but i always liked WHIP.  

from last year:

Crochet #8

Gray #28

Bello #29

 

top 10

1 -Skubal

2 -deGrom

3 -Woo

4 -Skenes

5 -Pivetta (what?)

6 -Yamamoto

7 -H. Brown

9 -Ryan

10 -Rodon

[moonslav59]

41 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i know it's not the most fashionable stat du jour but i always liked WHIP.  

from last year:

Crochet #8

Gray #28

Bello #29

 

top 10

1 -Skubal

2 -deGrom

3 -Woo

4 -Skenes

5 -Pivetta (what?)

6 -Yamamoto

7 -H. Brown

9 -Ryan

10 -Rodon

I like WHIP more for RP'ers and OPS Against for SP'er.

[Larry Cook]

Fansided proposed we trade Tolle, Duran and Romero to the reds for Hunter Greene!!! 
 

Greene under team control to 2029!  
 

I know it is an expensive trade, but depending on Greene’s medicals, I might pull the trigger on that trade if the reds agree to it! 

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

Fansided proposed we trade Tolle, Duran and Romero to the reds for Hunter Greene!!! 
Greene under team control to 2029!  
I know it is an expensive trade, but depending on Greene’s medicals, I might pull the trigger on that trade if the reds agree to it! 

I'd give Crawford, too.

[sk7326]

On 11/26/2025 at 10:05 PM, Randy Red Sox said:

i liked Gray a few years back but at this stage of his career I think the Sox will be disappointed if they think he is a #2 SP. 

A co-ace or something like that is asking too much.  But for the price, the deal was a no-brainer.  Gray's peripherals were better than his results last year - but his results have been better in previous years, so I have some confidence that a bunch of it was noise.

[mvp 78]

 

[JoeBrady]

On 11/30/2025 at 10:16 PM, moonslav59 said:

I like WHIP more for RP'ers and OPS Against for SP'er.

I like OPSa a whole lot more than ERA.  It's much more consistent.

[JoeBrady]

On 11/30/2025 at 11:10 PM, moonslav59 said:

I'd give Crawford, too.

I'd be shocked if they took it.  I'm not a fan of Romero, and Crawford is iffy with his short history and injuries.  Duran is a star, and Tolle has promise.  But Greene is a true #1.  He had a 59/12 K/W in 48 IPs in Aug-Sep.  A little more consistency and a few more IPs, and he'll be one of the top-10 in BB.

[Duran Is The Man]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

 

i like him even more now.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

I like OPSa a whole lot more than ERA.  It's much more consistent.

BR has OPSA buried on the splits page, and fangraphs doesn't list it anywhere.

If we use it so much to place value on batter, it makes sense that the same stat would be good for placing value on pitchers.

It's also good for SP'ers and RP'ers where ERA drops the ball w RP'er, and SP'ers are charged with ERs that RP'ers allow to score after they leave.

Here are a few selected OPSA for 2025:

.387 Chapman

.522 Early

.530 Guerrero (almost as many PAs faced as Early)

.543 Whitlock

.569 Bernardino (obviously OPSA means little to Brez)

.580 Slaten

.598 Murphy (See Guerrero & the Bernardino comment)

.617 Crochet

.622 Wink

.647 Weissert

.669 Bello

.685 Giolito

.697 Wilson, .706 Harrison, .713 Dobbins

.779 Fitts, .809 Criswell, .812 Moran

.823 Buehler, .890 Tolle, .920 Houck

.949 Hicks

________________

Available/ Maybe Available?

Peralta .603 (.693 in '24)

P Lopez .622 (.705 in '24)

Bubic .626 (.609 in '24)

Sale .627 (.588 in '24)

M Kelly .661 (.720 in '24)

Ryan .666 (.657 in '24)

Valdez .667 (.610 in '24)

Lodolo .672 (.696 in '24)

R Suarez .679 (.678 in '24)

M King .696 (.642 in '24)

L Castillo .699 (.705)

M Keller .715 (.767)

Singer .718 (.721)

Gray .726 (.677 in '24)

Gore .728 (.736 in '24)

[Larry Cook]

Toronto signs ponce for 3 years and 30 million 

[moonslav59]

18 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

Toronto signs ponce for 3 years and 30 million 

TOR is pouncing.

[notin]

2 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

Toronto signs ponce for 3 years and 30 million 

Aka 2 years and $29mill more than recommended…

[Larry Cook]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Aka 2 years and $29mill more than recommended…

Ouch!!   I wonder if they saw him throw before signing him. 

[mvp 78]

9 hours ago, notin said:

Aka 2 years and $29mill more than recommended…

If you are a journeyman struggling in MLB, go overseas to get paid. Wild. 

 

[Duran Is The Man]

9 hours ago, notin said:

Aka 2 years and $29mill more than recommended…

Jays are now over the second tax line. time for John Henry to unclinch his butt cheeks and do the same.

[mvp 78]

Scouts like what Ponce did last year. Merrill Kelly popped over in the same league. 🫠

[Hitch]

I'm struggling to believe that the Jays also bring back Bichette at the moment.

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I'm struggling to believe that the Jays also bring back Bichette at the moment.

I doubt it, but they seem like they see the open window and are going for it. Bichette will want a long deal, so maybe they go shorter with a deal like Polanco or Suarez.

[moonslav59]

The Jays are losing Bassitt, so I'm not sure their rotation will be as great as some think.

Guasman will be 35. Berrios 32 in May and Lauer 31 in June.

They still have some holes, as do all teams.

[notin]

15 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The Jays are losing Bassitt, so I'm not sure their rotation will be as great as some think.

Guasman will be 35. Berrios 32 in May and Lauer 31 in June.

They still have some holes, as do all teams.

If Lauer is in the rotation opening day, thats a moral victory for the other 4 teams in the AL East…

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Scouts like what Ponce did last year. Merrill Kelly popped over in the same league. 🫠

Did lightning strike twice?

[notin]

On 11/30/2025 at 8:20 PM, moonslav59 said:

It's hard to construct an accurate system to divide all of the top MLB SP'ers into 5 categories of 30 each.

To get a sample size of 150 pitchers (30 teams x 5 SP'ers) the sample size needs to be around 75 IP. If you use that, then you have some smaller sample pitchers that show up on the ERA, ERA+, ERA-, FIP and other non cumulative value stats leader boards, most likely undeservedly.

Since most #5 starters are interchangeable, maybe getting the sample size to 120 is best, and all the rest are #5's or better. This is flawed, too, for many of the same reasons. The sample size is 100 to get 120 pitchers, and someone going 100 IP vs someone else going 180-200+ IP is apples to oranges in many ways (unless you use something like fWAR, which accounts for longevity.)

Here is a look at the top 120 rankings:

fWAR: #1 Crochet (4) & Gray (20), #2 Bello (59) Gio was a #3 at 64 and nobody else had 120 IP.

ERA-: #1 Crochet (9) #2 Bello (31 is almost a #1) Gio was a high #2 (33) and Gray is a #3 at 77.

FIP: #1 Crochet (8) #1 Gray (21) High #3 Bello (62) & Gio (64)

Does this get us any closer to knowing if Gray or Bello should be called a #2, a #3 or something else?

Then, we have to try and project 2026 from past numbers: 1 year, 2 years, 3 years???

Geeeessh!

 

It’s an instance of folks trying to relate a simple concept and overthinking it.

I can promise you no one can come up with criteria for a #2 starter that isnt either ridiculous, or doesn’t include Sonny Gray.  Honestly, the best definition I’ve seen in hindsight was the simplest  - someone to start game two of a postseason series. (Points awarded to 5Gold)  It’s impossible to quantify, but really, it gets across a simple point - “improve the rotation and do so by improving the top end.” I think that’s all anyone wanted.  Now, Gray does actually do that.  But I think he lacks the sexiness many wanted, and as he is already 36 years old and will very likely continue to get older, he is a short term solution at best.

But I like this rotation right now. The Sox have a rare level of depth we usually don’t see in December.  If they don’t add another SP, I’m ok. Fix the infield and, since MLB is a bullpen game, add additional quality arm(s?) to the bullpen.  And maybe a catcher, but thats low on my list…

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

It’s an instance of folks trying to relate a simple concept and overthinking it.

I can promise you no one can come up with criteria for a #2 starter that isnt either ridiculous, or doesn’t include Sonny Gray.  Honestly, the best definition I’ve seen in hindsight was the simplest  - someone to start game two of a postseason series. (Points awarded to 5Gold)  It’s impossible to quantify, but really, it gets across a simple point - “improve the rotation and do so by improving the top end.” I think that’s all anyone wanted.  Now, Gray does actually do that.  But I think he lacks the sexiness many wanted, and as he is already 36 years old and will very likely continue to get older, he is a short term solution at best.

But I like this rotation right now. The Sox have a rare level of depth we usually don’t see in December.  If they don’t add another SP, I’m ok. Fix the infield and, since MLB is a bullpen game, add additional quality arm(s?) to the bullpen.  And maybe a catcher, but thats low on my list…

I've always felt it is a losing strategy to try and upgrade your 4 or 5 SP'er. It's not a bad idea to add starter depth, but the best plan is to upgrade at the 1 or 2 slot, maybe 3 slot, if that is the best you can do. That pushes your current 2 to the 3, the 3 to the 4 and the 5 to depth. In a sense, it upgrades 3-4 slots with one add. In reality, it's just one guy, and you have 5 starters who all start 31-33 games, if heathy and not demoted, so it is just 1, and your 1 starts as much as your 4.

The #2 guy in the playoffs is a good way to look at it, but our #2 might be another team's #1 or #5, so in the context of the whole league, categorizing pitchers as 1,2,3,4,5 is always complex. As a general rule, I like to say the 30 best pitchers are #s, the next 30 are #2s and so on, but what stats to use and what time frame to use complicates that process, too.

To me, we have this right now:

1. Crochet (top 5 of 30)

3. Gray (looks like a 2 in many areas)

3. Bello (looks like a 2 in some areas)

4. Sandoval (health concerns)

5. Crawford (health) Dobbins (inexperience) Harrison (inexperience)

7-8. Criswell

Unknown: Tolle, Early, Perales

AAAA depth: Uberstine & Drohan

[Old Red]

57 minutes ago, notin said:

It’s an instance of folks trying to relate a simple concept and overthinking it.

I can promise you no one can come up with criteria for a #2 starter that isnt either ridiculous, or doesn’t include Sonny Gray.  Honestly, the best definition I’ve seen in hindsight was the simplest  - someone to start game two of a postseason series. (Points awarded to 5Gold)  It’s impossible to quantify, but really, it gets across a simple point - “improve the rotation and do so by improving the top end.” I think that’s all anyone wanted.  Now, Gray does actually do that.  But I think he lacks the sexiness many wanted, and as he is already 36 years old and will very likely continue to get older, he is a short term solution at best.

But I like this rotation right now. The Sox have a rare level of depth we usually don’t see in December.  If they don’t add another SP, I’m ok. Fix the infield and, since MLB is a bullpen game, add additional quality arm(s?) to the bullpen.  And maybe a catcher, but thats low on my list…

To me numbering starters 1-5 is overthinking it in the first place. To you really have to assign a number to someone to help tell they might be better than another?🤭🤫

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, Old Red said:

To me numbering starters 1-5 is overthinking it in the first place. To you really have to assign a number to someone to help tell they might be better than another?🤭🤫

It's a way of distinguishing how good your rotation is. You may think it's "overthinking," but others see it as simplifying how we compare one staff to another or one starter to another with just 5 simple numbers rather than a mix of several other numbers.

The Sox might have one #1, two #3's, two #4's and four #5's.

The Yanks might have one #1, three #3's and 3 number 5's.

The Jays might have ...

Nobody "has to assign a number," but people do it all the time, but by using EAR, fWAR, ERA-/ERA+ or other stats, metrics or combinations of things.

 

[Duran Is The Man]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's a way of distinguishing how good your rotation is. You may think it's "overthinking," but others see it as simplifying how we compare one staff to another or one starter to another with just 5 simple numbers rather than a mix of several other numbers.

The Sox might have one #1, two #3's, two #4's and four #5's.

The Yanks might have one #1, three #3's and 3 number 5's.

The Jays might have ...

Nobody "has to assign a number," but people do it all the time, but by using EAR, fWAR, ERA-/ERA+ or other stats, metrics or combinations of things.

 

and the Dodgers have five #1s.