Dojji

If Johnson can regularly go between 6 and 7 innings with an era ~4.00, there's going to be teams asking about his availability this offseason. Because what I just described is a #3 starter. I have no problem with Cora letting it ride with a comfortable lead and finding out what Johnson can do

Long bomb aside, I doubt anyone on the Red Sox is giving Johnson anything but congratulations after his performance tonight. He looked good aside from that one mistake when he was gassed, he never surrendered the lead, and going 7 has a value all its own no matter how many runs the pitcher gives up. If I had to guess, at least to Johnson, Cora eats that decision as a my-bad, tells the kid he did great last night (which he did) and probably came away with a very positive impression of Johnson's work last night.

Wouldn't mind Herrera, but if he's cheaper, it won't be by a ton. I have him somewhere in the 5/75 range. Also Herrera, while very talented, isn't quite on the same level as Kimbrel over their careers. They're both good, but Kimbrel's a little better. If you're going to have to pay out of pocket for a closer, you might as well stretch your budget a bit and go for the best one on the market IMHO.

Poor Orioles. At least the Royals got to two World Series and won 1 before they had to tear their roster down.

I agree to a point, but he'd been throwing well all game until he got hit in the 6th. I wouldn't be too hard on Cora for pressing his luck a bit with a comfortable lead. If you never stretch a guy beyond where he's comfortable, he doesn't grow, amirite? I'm still comfortable enough with a 7 inning performance out of basically a backup starter, even if a last minute homer did make his ER count a little high.

20 mil just isn't the kind of money it used to be. Payroll has literally doubled in the past 10 years. People choke on that number because they know we used to pay aces that kind of money, but that was 5-10 years ago. If an ace is worth 30M+, a high end closer is probably worth 20M To put it another way -- relative to payroll, 20M would be a smaller percentage of the team's overall payroll than Papelbon's salary in 2010.

I'll definitely take 7 IP 5 ER with this offense. Good job Mr. Johnson. And once again, he outperforms Pomeranz.

Exactly. I won't defend bad umpiring for nostalgia's sake, but if people want an automated game, they'll play the latest MLB2K game from EA.

I think you guys are setting yourselves up for major sticker shock when we do sign him for about 4/75 or 5/90. somewhere in the 17-19M AAV is roughly what the market has been for that type of talent over the last 2 offseasons, and DD isn't about to let a useful player go over money. Not on the Boston Red Sox. Somehow considering the available alternatives I don't really have a problem signing Kimbrel through hjis age 35, 36 season. I wouldn't sign him much longer than that, but it's not that unreasonable to expect him to be productive over the life of a 5 year contract that he signed at 30 years old.

The Dodgers have no reason to trade Janssen, and Janssen's contract is actually 3/60 left on it right now. So you'd pay talent for the privilege of paying just as much money in AAV. Call me nuts but I don't think that's the optimal solution.;

Kimbrel has more than enough leverage to insist on being paid as well as Davis or Janssen. This is not an opinion. 3/45 is what they were paying closers 10 years ago before the big revenue spike. Would have been a reasonable contract in 2009. In 2019, not so much

I've mentioned some contract comparables, and by all indications, you are simply wrong. Look at the recent contracts for Kenley Janssen and Wade Davis, and come back and tell me that 45/3 isn't a total lowball offer for Kimbrel.

Do you thirst for vengeance then? Is your desire for punishment or for the umps getting the call right more often?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the particulars of this argument I'm hearing from Kimmi and those who seem to agree with her. I mean I hear this argument and I compare it to the following. Perhaps Kimmi et. al. can explain the distinction between what they're trying to say, and this argument: "You should never spend big money on a starting pitcher. Starting pitchers are found on the cheap all the time, and any good team should be able to develop starting pitching and take advantage of rookie contracts to keep salary low. So even if you're all in for this season and the next 2-3, you shouldn't spend big money to sign an ace because there's so many other ways to acquire one." What's the difference? Please enlighten me.

Given the contracts handed out to similar pitchers such as Wade Davis and Kenly Jansen, I think we'll see closers cross the 20M dollar threshhold within the next year or two, yes. Again, you're trying to say this for shock value, but in an era where top starters made 20M, top closers got 12-15M, so when top starters make $30M, $20M isn't as unreasonable as you're making it sound. As a general rule, the league's top closers tend to march lockstep with #3 starters in terms of salary requirements, at least historically

Standing on dogmatic principles of roster building with no regard for the situation or the team's actual needs is a thing that usually does round down to "stupid," yes.

In other words, we're supposed to magic the perfect closer out of a hat, probably from the discard pile because even before DD our homegrown development of pitching was distinctly lacking. This isn't even an argument. You're just taking something as dogma that's actually highly situational. Unless you get down to specifics, you're just spouting hot air. WHO else should and could DD have acquired? We were hella lucky that Kimbrel was available at all. Most teams with a consistent closer aren't going to let them go for love or money, unless they're concerned about durability or performance, neither of which has been an issue for Kimbrel. Fortunately the Padres were so far up a creek without a paddle in terms of their own drafting and development that playoff pushes weren't in their immediate future and there was a deal to be made.

End of argument, Kimmi. If we can't get that guy, that guy is not a workable example for you. Your own argument says that WE CAN ACQUIRE similar value in the closer's position for less investment. A player we can not acquire is not an example of this.

So what are you saying? That 1 run saves are the hardest things closers have to do? Do you really not think you're just stating the obvious here? I'll take a closer who's about 80% in the most challenging part of a closer's job and perfect in the easier situations. I'll take that guy 11 times out of 10 over most of the other closers on the market.

WAR is great for analyzing a full season for starting players. It is a T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E way of measuring situational performers and part time players because its mechanism for addressing situational play is actually quite weak.

I'll say this for you, Kimmi. Even when you're out on a limb with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that everything you're saying isn't 100% all-natural fertilizer, you do tend to stick to your guns. That said, being consistent isn't a virtue when you're consistently wrong. Rookie contracts aside, there is no way to consistently achieve success from the bargain bin. Even if you do pay, there's no guarantee of success, but refusing to pay for quality talent at key positions is equivalent to tying one hand behind your back and expecting to win a boxing match -- even if you pull it off, you probably would have been able to do better work if you hadn't handicapped yourself.

You keep saying that and failing to prove it. Where's your evidence?

Yes it does. In fact it turns it on its head. Wade Davis was one of the best-paid players on a very low-budget Royals teams. There IS a reason that GMDM forked out for elite relief despite having a MUCH more restrictive budget than we have here. Davis had the 5th highest salary on the Royals that year. 4th before Zobrist joined the team. He was paid at the same level as all star 2B/OF Ben Zobrist and ace Edinson Volquez. This is a team that does NOT like to spend money, and yet they spent on elite relief in a year when they won the World Series largely with the help of elite relief. Like HELL that doesn't affect your argument.

Also disingenuous to list Greg Holland for the Royals when Wade Davis was the closer in the playoffs and threw the last pitch of the World Series. Also completely dishonest to throw rookie contracts out there as if it's always easy to have a cost-controlled closer out there even though all of those guys get paid after awhile Wade Davis got paid. So did Papelbon So did Mo. So did Isringhausen So did Jansen So did Brian Wilson So did Trevor Hoffman for that matter, at least relative to his own era Koji got a pretty nice contract too. Most of these guys were paid by the team they came up with or came into their own with, excluding Davis who played for the Royals who can't necessarily afford to pay for elite talent. But if you want that consistent guy, you do have to pay them, even if you get fortunate and they produce in the closer's role while ownership is able to use the CBA to rob them.

1: If you are going for a one off shot at a parade, you're right. If you want a chance at a parade in any given season, a perennially consistent closer is vital to cut down on bullpen uncertanty. We proved that after we lost Papelbon and we were wildly inconsistent until we acquired.... guess what... another perennially consistent closer 2: An elite lineup or a second ace aren't "required" either. But like an elite lockdown back end of the pen, it sure as heck helps. We have won exactly zero World Series without a high end closer. Sure we had to find Koji after Plan A failed, but if we didn't have him, we don't win that Series because we don't get out of the ALCS against Detroit Only if you misread them to a practically criminal level. Or are you really saying we should try to be competing for championships the same way the Kansas City Royals do? If not, why use their championship (which they could not repeat) as an example of how we should be doing things when this team plays a whole different style of baseball where the point is to be competitive EVERY year? But we never have. Unless you somehow think that Koji Uehara doesn't count as an elite closer? Completely ignoring the 5 other World Series in which that closer was absolutely dominant is not reasonable, and shows just how well you "read" (IE cherry pick) your statistics.