sk7326

At that point they were amassing interesting catcher prospects - Salty could hit and could play the position okay. Since catching is so hard to come by, getting as much potential as possible makes sense.

Not really - they just don't create as much value ... and they are easier to make (since almost all of them are failed starters - like Miller and Wade Davis)

I think Beltran for an Ortiz type deal (1 year, 1 option his, 1 option ours) works. Morales is not a bad second option. Again though, years are an issue.

It's one thing to have a dream job growing up as a fan. But once you're in the game - it's an industry, and it's a gig. Chicago offered him a promotion - imagine that.

If you add managers it's an even longer list

And he's barely 40. Too young to be in one job until you die.

i think they knew that last year. margot was always a high floor choice - and he looks like he will be a solid starter.

Relievers have so much volatility within and between seasons that as a cohort they are just less reliable in ways that starters are not. you are right about the importance of the role - but so much success in the pen is just getting lucky that paying a ton for it is a gamble. Very few of them offer certainty. The money who cares - but the years is more important. A 4 year commitment to any reliever is hard to stomach.

Paying relievers that much is hard to stomach on principle - and his emergence as a multi inning weapon is a fairly new development. I'd pay him for that work now.

I actually think he'd be more valuable that way - a guy who can pitch more than 1 inning at a time and then spot the 5th starter spot the times when it comes up. This postseason in particular (not that you'd manage the regular season that way in entirety) has given more motivation to reimagining how pitching staffs work in general.

Chapman pitching Game 6 was dicey but understandable. If you don't trust any other reliever - the cost of a loss was so high that managing like it was the last game of the season was justifiable (because it was). After all if you put in (anybody else) with a 5 run lead, and he let a run score, then pulling the alarm for Chapman would not have received any comment at all. He obviously was gassed in Game 7 - coming into a situation with a runner on was tricky as he resorted to a fastball he couldn't command. When he went slider heavy (like in the 9th) it worked. The bunt with Baez was dumb - but Baez looked totally lost at that point, so a bunt almost made sense. Heck, even pulling Hendricks quickly was fine in theory (again, trying not to be greedy) but he was so hot, should have at least given him a look at the third go through the order.

If Buchholz supplants somebody - it will be because he earned it

Option was easy - he can be a very effective swingman. He could be a good starter too - it would be nice if he and the sox figured out which. I mean if you look at the rotation, you have Price, Porcello and some combination of Pomeranz, Rodriguez, Wright and Buchholz Now I think Rodriguez has the most ceiling - he flashed legit top of the rotation potential. If he supplanted Porcello by the end of 2017 I would not be shocked. Wright is a knuckleballer - we know the deal with that. Buchholz we have to accept as genuinely inconsistent - productive for his salary, but hard to treat as any sort of constant. Pomeranz is sort of in the middle, considerable potential (not as high as ERod) with a little narrower range of outcomes.

Miller is an amazing reliever - and the Sox staff deserves a ton of credit for unleashing it. At the same time - the trade of Miller was a homerun - the best trade of the Cherington administration ... you make that every day of the week. The principle of not signing a reliever to that sort of contract is sound - but Miller has proven to be the rare bird who can be truly impactful. He can't start (his command of the slider is not good enough) but he is perfect for his job.

If Maddon did the same silly thing twice in the same postseason like Grady did? Yes. Of the things he did - the yanking of Hendricks so quickly was his worst.

If the Sox deal for Sale - would expect Rodriguez to be part of it - gets the White Sox a major league starter with top of the rotation capability (at least potentially).

Vic was a strange signing at the time - but he had an MVP caliber one year for us before his body fell to pieces. Flags fly forever - so ultimately no real problem with it. Dempster was effective at the thing he was signed to do - soak up innings at the back of the rotation. This is not much of a virtue for October, but important for surviving the marathon. Figure they will aim high for another big starter - via trade. I am sure Henry does not want to stand pat on the rotation and bet ERod will make a leap (although I am pretty sure he will).

Turned a near washout starter and an outfielder they didn't need into a guy in line for the Cy Young and a guy who sure as hell looks like a #2 starter next season. That wasn't so bad for the pitching staff.

I think Beltran for a 2/40 sort of hitch makes sense. He can also play an outfield corner from time to time (and presumably 1B). My guess is they do nothing at 3B - the options are there to cobble together a solid level of production.

In the year and change he has been in charge, most of the people responsible for the roster which won the division and is set up for such good things has left - that is unfortunate. It is hard to say anything one way or the other - he made several moves which made sense, although besides Price, very few of the moves were essential to their success.

I think that is conflating two separate things - the human stuff is input ... humans play these games inside of our TV sets. I would never dispute the importance therein - but the output is measurable stuff, and the output is what you get paid for. Now Price's postseason output has stunk - now whether that is actually a matter of pressure or just an issue with good teams are distinct diagnoses. (the latter one, while alarming, is much more credible) After all, Price went 10-2 down the stretch as a deadline gunner for the Jays in wins they had to have - and Price was at his best this season for us down the stretch when the games mattered most for securing the division. WAR is a sum of measurable baseball output - none of the stuff in there is subjective (aside from the subjectivity of its inclusion or exclusion). Now there are different ways to separate a pitcher's contribution to a team accomplishment (run prevention) which is what differentiates the measurements. (fWAR is better for predicting the future, bWAR is better for awards) There is no doubt pressure can affect people - at the same time, those factors matter less when dealing with a profession you have been doing since you were a child - especially if you do it well. And either way, it should come out in the wash. Could Price be pressing a bit in the playoffs - yes. But he was pretty good in a lot of big games which were essential to get to the tournament. It's not binary.

both 25 and under, one with legitimate swing and miss stuff. A team will try to buy low - but their careers are not dead at all.

I think as a matter of careers - Schilling has at most intervals been a better pitcher than Price. Price's postseason struggles are what they are - I would not call it luck. Going by game logs - there is some evidence he has not been so good third time through the order against that level of competition. I think the Cleveland start had a good deal of poor fortune (his stuff looked better than Porcello's). I always go to my main issue with "clutch" - while Schilling has been a better big game pitcher than Price, I'd also submit he is just a better pitcher period.

1. Not to be nit picky, but ERA is quantification - if you want to go there 2. The mental stuff does matter - but given that this is such a competitive industry, those who wilt under pressure probably wilted in Altoona or Greenville or Chattanooga. 3. Remember the Yankees won the World Series three times in four years. They also blew series in 2003 and 2004 with home field advantage. The greatest closer who ever lived blew a save to win the World Series and another to win the AL Pennant. Does that mean the principals suddenly had issues with composure? Or was it the other team having a hot stretch. Or was it just baseball? Remember Luiz Gonzalez game winning single in the 2001 World Series was basically an outcome Rivera would have been happy with vis a vis his job. (threw a good cutter Gonzalez could not square up with good contact) The blooper fell where there were no fielders - it happens. 4. It IS a tournament between good teams - and that is the source of the pressure. These teams are all good. (and are all probably even in the mental stuff - it's why they are good) Anyone who played baseball knows that you can do the right thing and have nothing to show for it - it happens all the time. Remember, this is a sport where the best hitters still fail at their job over half the time. There is just so much "sh!t happens" noise in any single game that it is hard to get too deep into blame. That doesn't mean that it is all luck - but luck is a pretty significant driver.

At this point they are almost all saber orgs - just a matter of how (except for Arizona and they are fixing that)