Orange Juiced

My prediction is that the Sox bring him up in September. I am not 100% sure, but I *think* the rules regarding when a player's service time clock change for September callups, so it wouldn't hurt them in the long run. And the longer they wait to bring him up, the less time MLB pitchers have to adjust to him. And with Iglesias slumping, I think that the main September lineup will be Drew at SS and Bogaerts at 3b, with Iglesias spelling either of them from time to time as needed. I think Middlebrooks stays in AAA, though they may call him up in September too, just to keep him around. You never know when his power might come in handy in a pinch-hitting spot.

Yeah, honestly, I'm with you here. I think they roll with what they have in terms of starting pitching, use some of their own guys to plug gaps, and hope that Buchholz is ready for the September stretch run. And then you take your chances with a rotation of Buchholz-Lester-Lackey-Doubront-Dempster. And fill in the bullpen with some live arms from the minors - maybe you make a couple of minor deals or see if Contreras and/or Lyon can contribute. I think largely staying put is probably a more realistic direction for the Sox right now.

Peavy is, IMO, better than Norris (obviously his career track record is much, much better, but I'm talking about the two of them *right now*). But Norris, though I'm not super-high on him, intrigues me more. A few reasons: (1) Age. He's several years younger. (2) Health. Norris doesn't have Peavy's injury history. (3) Upside. I think Peavy has already reached his peak and is on the way down. Norris is still trending up. (4) Cost. Norris' contract is WAY cheaper than Peavy's. And yet, because Norris is more of an unknown, and Peavy is more of a big-time name, the asking price for Peavy may still be higher. Obviously I don't know this for sure, but often times people go after big names because of the comfort level and familiarity they have with that bigger name player. So the more suitors, the more demand, and the price goes up. Norris the last 3 seasons: 2011: 3.77 era, 100 era+, 1.33 whip, 8.5 k/9 2012: 4.65 era, 87 era+, 1.37 whip, 8.8 k/9 2013: 3.93 era, 105 era+, 1.41 whip, 6.4 k/9 So the k/9 and whip numbers aren't encouraging, but the era and era+ numbers are. Especially given that he's moved to the American League. For anyone interested, here's a pretty cool scouting report on Norris from a couple of years ago, tracking him as he moved through the Astros system. http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/2/2/1289269/not-a-rookie-bud-norris

Ok...gotcha. Thanks for that clarification. It's why I asked the question in the first place. And here you thought I was just arguing for the sake of arguing!

Of course. So I entered this conversation wondering what you meant when you said, he is what he is. Bottom line: you think what we see is what we get...a decent pitcher with a mediocre ceiling, and there's no reason you see for that evaluation to change.

Sure, I agree with that totally. There are many factors to consider. But just as some players have great tools but just don't end up being very good real-life players, other guys have decent tools but just turn out to be really good real-life players. That's why you have to look at everything. As Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane said to his team of scouts in Moneyball, if he's such a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?

I would look at what the scouts tell me, but I'd also look at his actual production throughout his career, and I would certainly take notice of a guy that has improved significantly as he has moved up the system.

I don't understand this line of thinking. Some pitchers aren't rated highly because they have average velocity or only one plus pitch. Yet as they get older and move through the system, their velocity increases or they add a plus pitch or they finally "get it" and develop pinpoint control, or whatever. I don't care what his projections are. The statement that he is what he is implies that he can't be a good major league pitcher because scouts didn't project him that high. I just don't get that.

It's too bad. These types of groups are for fans to discuss things, and often there will be disagreements. Why those disagreements need to turn nasty I have no idea.

What do you mean I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. That was my first post ever on this site with respect to Workman. I was just asking what you meant by "he is what he is". Seems to me he's getting better, which implies that there's a chance he could be a pretty useful pitcher in the majors.

What does this mean, "He is what he is"? As Standing Room pointed out, he's gotten better every year in the Sox' system, and every level he's gone up.

I agree with both of you guys. Which is why, even though they have a real shot this year (much to our surprise), you don't go full-guns GFIN mode, because to do that would cost you the gems of your farm system. And the Sox won't do that, I wouldn't think. Peavy doesn't really interest me that much. Here are his numbers over his 3 1/2 years with the White Sox: 80 g (about 22 per season on average), 510.2 ip (139.1 on average), 4.09 era, 105 era+, 1.17 whip, 7.9 k/9 Just one of his 3+ seasons in the AL has he had an era below 4.19. Just one of his 3+ seasons in the AL has he pitched more than 112 innings or appeared in more than 19 games. This year he's been a decent pitcher (4.19 era, 104 era+, 1.16 whip, 8.5 k/9), but those are basically Ryan Dempster numbers for the most part. Unless Clay was definitely done for the year, I wouldn't give up much for Peavy. Lester seems to be rounding into form (3 of his last 4 starts he's been really solid), Lackey continues to be really good, Doubront continues to excel, and Dempster has been just fine. It's that last spot that's been the concern, and if Clay returns, say, on Sep 1, that means we're talking like 7 outings from Peavy before someone would have to go to the bullpen. That would almost certainly be Doubront, which would be terrible, since he's been one of their best starters. I guess you worry about that later, but can the Sox get relatively equal performance from Workman, et al, to what they'd get from Peavy over those 7 starts? I would bet that they'd be close enough to not want to give up much of value for him.

Well that and the fact that people might just find a fist in their face if they said in person some of the things they say anonymously over the internet.

How much of that bright future would you be willing to give up to go for it this year? Bogaerts for Peavy?

Other news on the potential pitching front... from (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/boston_red_sox/): "The Red Sox are looking "pretty hard" at free agent Cuban righty Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez, president and CEO Larry Lucchino said on WEEI's Dennis & Callahan show this morning (Tim Healey has quotes). "The auctioning can begin," said Lucchino. Noting that GM Ben Cherington guards the team's prospects "like his first-born child," Lucchino explained, "Reaching into your pocket for your wallet is much easier." Lucchino confirmed the Sox are searching for rotation and bullpen help. Gonzalez, 26, is expected to sign soon. On Monday, MLB.com's Jesse Sanchez said he's down to five teams. MLB.com's Ken Gurnick reported Tuesday that the Dodgers, who had been heavily linked to Gonzalez, are not pursuing him. Earlier this week, Ben Badler of Baseball America provided a scouting report on Gonzalez (subscription required and recommended). Badler noted that "projections vary significantly" on the righty, ranging from a big league ready No. 3 starter on the high end to a long reliever on the low end." What do you guys think of Gonzalez? Here's an interesting look at him: http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/6/27/4470124/miguel-alfredo-gonzalez-international-free-agent-yasiel-puig-dodgers-red-sox If all he costs is money, the Sox have that, and it wouldn't cost them any of their prospects. Plus, he's a potentially dynamic arm for the rotation for now and the next few years. I think this is the kind of situation where the Sox, who will have payroll flexibility with so many young players coming up and a lot of veterans on short money, should take a risk and go for this guy.

I agree. Before this season started, we were all debating whether Cherington's moves were any good, etc. My argument was that this team has a very bright future, but that might be a couple of years away still. And in the meanwhile, they added some pretty decent players on short-term deals, so the team has a chance to be competitive and interesting this year, holding the fort for when all that talent arrives. And yet they've turned out to be much more than just competitive. They've turned out to have one of the best teams in the majors. This has caught us all by surprise. So that future we have in front of us is still very much there. It's just that the present is way better than we thought it would be. Now the trick for the front office is this: given that they're much better than expected NOW, do they sacrifice some of that incredibly bright future for a chance to go for it now? Should they just play this out with what they have and say, well, this went better than we thought so any postseason success is gravy? Can they forge a middle ground and go for it without sacrificing too much of their bright future?

You guys need to make up your minds: Is Lackey now a terrific pitcher that represents outstanding value? Or is he a person that represents a major health risk, having just come off TJ surgery at his age, and therefore isn't worth that much? It can't be both.

I'd do essentially the same deal, but with Randall Delgado instead of Bradley.

Try this scenario: Lackey finishes the year with 15 wins and a 3.05 era. Just superb. Those 2014 and 2015 years look awesome to a contender that needs a really good veteran starter, doesn't want to spend a ton of money, and has good prospects to deal. Enter: the Arizona Diamondbacks. 1. They are very much a contender in the NL West. Right now they are just 1/2 game back, and there's no reason to think they won't be a contender next year. 2. Their payroll is 17th in MLB at about $90 million. So they can afford to take on an $8 million pitcher (AAV), but not a $15 million pitcher. 3. Their starting rotation is as follows: - Ian Kennedy: 114.0 ip, 3-7, 5.29 era, 1.39 whip - Trevor Cahill: 96.2 ip, 3-10, 4.66 era, 1.41 whip - Wade Miley: 120.2 ip, 6-8, 4.03 era, 1.38 whip - Patrick Corbin: 130.1 ip, 11-1, 2.35 era, 1.00 whip - Brandon McCarthy: 66.2 ip, 2-4, 5.00 era, 1.43 whip - Randall Delgado: 44.2 ip, 2-3, 3.43 era, 1.43 whip - Tyler Skaggs: 35.0 ip, 2-2, 4.11 era, 1.29 whip Cahill and Kennedy have both been very disappointing this season. But they're both pretty good pitchers. Career #s: - Cahill: 3.96 era, 1.32 whip - Kennedy: 3.98 era, 1.26 whip They also have a very intriguing pitching prospect named Archie Bradley. Excellent prospect (ranked #21 in MLB). Throws in the mid-90s with great sinking action. Minor league numbers this year so far: 8-4, 1.95 era, 1.20 whip, 10.0 k/9. So you deal Lackey and a couple of prospects (Brentz and Middlebrooks?) and get two pitchers in return: Bradley and either Cahill or Kennedy, whichever Arizona prefers to give up. Cahill is younger and is locked up for longer, but is also more expensive than Kennedy. I'd take either one. The key is Bradley, who appears to be a stud in the making. But he's a year or two away most likely. In the meanwhile, Cahill or Kennedy fills the gap. It's entirely possible that either of those guys would put up similar numbers to what Lackey might down the road. But right now, Lackey is cheaper than either Cahill, and he's better than either one by a sizeable margin. Arizona gets immediately better in their rotation and adds some positional help in the prospects they get. The Sox get a solid veteran pitcher (they're buying low) to plug the gap for a couple of years, and then when he's ready, add a potential #1 stud in Bradley to the rotation.

Well as long as he's ready for the stretch run and (hopefully!) playoffs, I'm ok with it taking a little while. Of course, his prolonged absence might prevent the Sox from even getting there.

The very reasons you say the Sox should hold on to him are the very reasons why someone would give up a pretty nice package to acquire him.

Right. Lots of good reasons to keep Lackey. But again, since 2010, we'd all have driven the guy to the airport if we knew we could unload him and get something nice in return. And now, I cannot imagine his value will ever be higher. He's pitching lights-out, he's still young enough, he won't be making a ton, and he has championship experience. I would think the Sox could get a lot for him at this point. But right now, the Sox have a chance to win it all, so yeah, you probably keep him. But in the offseason? Might be a different story.

I agree. We need to worry about the long-term prospects of our favorite team only. The Rangers just improved their team dramatically with this trade, and that will make winning it all this year significantly more difficult. If the Rangers get hurt by this trade 4 years from now, it won't matter, because some other team will rise up. It's one reason winning it all is so hard year-in and year-out. There's always someone in GFIN mode and loading up, even if it costs them down the road.

Would you deal Brentz for him? Probably not I guess.

Of course it's not going to be the exact same velocity every start. But look: - starts 3-9: - 7 starts - 1 starts where the average FB velocity was above 90 (and it was just a tick over 90) - starts 10-18: - 9 starts - 7 starts where the average FB velocity was above 90 - 5 starts where the average FB velocity was about 92 or above So yes, it's not totally consistent, but his velocity *IS* improving. There's no question about that.