cp176

1.yes (to me) 2.not sure how to answer some of these ones - I think that it is hypothetical to think that trying to keep Kimbrel becomes and either or situation. We might not be able to keep any of these guys. Obviously i don't look ahead and try to guess what the market is going to look like in a couple of years. It changes too much as a result it really doesn't interest me. Your very last statement is the most meaningful to me. Absolutely we have found solid closers before but to me what we have done in the past with closers would never serve as justification for letting the best walk if he could be signed for something reasonable well knowing that it is an overpay. I tend to look at the jumbled mess we have in the bullpen currently. Just about everything I have read here about the bullpen has been negative. What we have is someone that we seem to be able to count on at the backend. I like having some stability without worrying about having to go searching for it.

I have heard your suggestion of signing 3 or 4 relief pitchers who appear to be solid (you never really know) and possibly finding your closer this way before here numerous times. Normally I would say that it is a decent idea. In this case, I'm not buying it. It may happen but Kimbel's impact on this team's success is monstrous. You don't let the best get away without a major effort to sign him. I'm not for using all available resources to sign him but the notion that his leaving won't possibly have a big time negative effect on us isn't working for me.

Well yes I guess that certainly is a point but maybe I should have been clearer. I probably would not have responded to this at all if I did not get the impression that there are people who do not truly grasp how important he has been and is to this team. The suggestion has been made that relief pitchers and even closers might be a dime a dozen. That might be true to a certain extent unless you are talking about the best in the business which Kimbrel is. Losing the best may hurt a lot more than paying more than you want to for him.

No one here seems to be disagreeing that signing Kimbrel for more than 3 years would be a good deal. He turned 30 years old in May and saying that he is close to a decline is an assumption based on statistics saying that it just seems to happen. That is logical but every situation is different. He could very well pitch well for a number of years. Throwing relievers out there and hoping that one will emerge has been tried. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. He is the best we got for sure coming out of that pen. He has 42 saves this season - 42. He may become too expensive to keep but saying that overpaying for his talent will be devastating to our franchise imo is just silly. He is and has proven to be too valuable to just allow him to walk without a major effort to keep him. A big market team isn't likely to start going small all of a sudden.

I tend to agree with you. If a slightly better than average catcher who can hit just a little bit is available out there, I would not be surprised at all if one of the two are gone before next year. At this point in time, I don't see what makes Vazquez particularly valuable to this team moving forward. Leon I guess I get. He is and has been a better receiver than Vazquez for some time now. Maybe Vazquez's contract makes him the one who stays but trading him for an upgrade somewhere else would not bother me at all. I was particularly less than impressed with him the other night when i watched E-rod continually hit his mitt which was placed inches outside of the inside corner of the plate. I kind of thought that maybe he would bring it in to the zone after about the fifth time - nope.

Once again - when you have the best in the game showing no real slippage the suggestion that overpaying him for possibly 3 years is a personal opinion based upon nothing other than what someone thinks the market will look like. The suggestion that it would represent a "huge " mistake once again is a personal opinion based upon what someone feels the franchise should do. It is likely that John Henry sees it differently.

Of course you know that I'm with you here but what the hell I also believe that protection in the lineup is a real thing as well as momentum. And for the record, if Mookie Betts was hitting in the 3 hole for us all season there would not be any debate whatsoever as to who the MVP is this year. His RBI total would more than shove him over the top.

I'm not worried about it at all. It's all about the thread that I find interesting. it is a topic that I find interesting.

Yup - I'm just not sure that cheaping out and letting the best in the business walk away is the way to go. I think that in general relief pitchers and maybe even closers aren't that difficult to replace. In this case though, I think you have to consider what we have what he has done and what he very might well continue to do. The asking price might become too high but he is worth quite a bit more than the average reliever.

I agree and I think it probably is fairly safe to say the a huge majority of relief pitchers regardless of the role they play started out as starters. The question is though if you already have that guy why risk the change? If he prices himself out, then of course that is another matter. My point still remains that Kimbrel may be the best in the game and he currently plays for us. Trying to replace the best might not be an easy job.

In that era, how many innings did the starting pitcher tend to throw per game?

All probably decent possibilities I guess but in my opinion a solid effort needs to be made to sign someone who has proven to be very reliable as opposed to taking risks. His asking price might be too high but someone will likely get a closer that can be counted on. Sometimes you just don't know nor do you appreciate what you actually have until it's gone.

Tough question for me to answer Slasher. It is all play money as far as I am concerned. We have the highest payroll in baseball and in all honesty I don't care. The players are overpaid and the owners have made and are making ridiculous amounts. My only point is I guess that bullpens are and will continue to be unpredictable and when you have someone out there who appears to be solid, you just need to think long and hard before letting him go. If the price gets to steep, he walks but he won't be easy to replace. The impression I get here is that some posters believe that losing him will be no big deal and that he can be replaced. Maybe and maybe not. It is a gamble.

ditto - bad catching!!! too cute.

so maybe Vazquez needs to set up just an incy bit closer to the gd plate. He hit the mitt that has been out of the K-zone. ridiculous.

I agree

I agree with you but assuming that by signing a whole bunch of guys who we think might get the job done could very likely hurt us badly. If he walks, it would be a huge gamble moving forward for us.

I actually agree with you about Kimbrel possibly seeing a little decline. It's a good bet. He has been so good for so long. It is a tough situation for JH to be facing. Letting the one dependable arm that you have out there won't be easy. This decision could go either way.

Are there any real guarantees? Isn't it at least a little comforting to know that you have at least one fairly dependable arm at the back end of the rotation?

Like I said - there are absolutely no guarantees with signing relief pitchers. I'm not a strong advocate for spending big money on an extended Kimbrel signing but if having at least one arm in the bullpen that you can at least sort of count on - particularly at the back end of it -doesn't at least make a person pause then oh well. We might be able to win without having someone like Kimbrel out there but on the other hand our bullpen might look worse than it does right now. It is very debatable as to whether or not we would be fine next year without a closer like Kimbrel next year. Not signing him is a gamble. Signing 3 or 4 good relievers (whoever they might be) might work out and then again it might not. Much like JD Martinez, I think that Kimbrel has played a huge role with respect to this team's current success. I for one would never accept the blanket statement that we would be just fine without having either one of these two guys. I understand (for the record) that you did not mention JD here but it has been suggested here that we would have produced as well without him. That to me is similar to suggesting that we would be as successful next year by just taking a chance with others as opposed to keeping Kimbrel. I like Kimbrel but if he is not resigned my bet would be that it won't be because John Henry has decided to get frugal all of a sudden.

I'm not sure that I am totally in favor of giving a boatload of cash to Mr. Kimbrel but watching the current bullpen antics makes wonder if we really should sign the guy. He comes the closest to a sure thing that we have out there. bullpens in general seem to be unpredictable and just lining them up and taking your chances isn't necessarily the way to go. It is good to have at least one guy out there that you can kind of count on as opposed to just throwing them out there and hoping they get it done.

1. Bob Melvin 2. Alex Cora

There is no question about this. It is something that has been known for a very long time. I think that JH by not selling this team by now is saying that he might not intend to. He might just enjoy being the owner of the team. They all want to run successful businesses but this isn't where he has made his money. He has money and it is fairly obvious I think how he wants to spend it. You either like his philosophy I guess or you don't. I like it because I like winning. The "drunken sailor" analogy I don't think applies but only because I have not really known any billionaire drunken sailors. The cliff myth will be proven to be a joke.

All teams will face similar problems as we move into the future. Worrying and over thinking about it, would tend to take some of the shine off of what we have done and what it looks as though we are going to do. I'm sure that it is fun for all of you to debate. What I tend to focus in on is what the franchise has done since John Henry and Company took control. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can think for one minute that at a certain time based on what you assume is going to happen financially with the franchise and ML baseball in general, that by the year 2020 this team out of nowhere becomes a bottom feeder. That in my opinion is not very likely to happen regardless of all of all of the gloomy predictions made here.

I don't let go of guys easily but I am at that point with Pomeranz and especially Kelly. Using kelly in any late inning role with a game on the line is now really looking to be an exercise in futility.