sk7326

I did not love every second of it, but largely yes ... 1. There is little evidence that the pitchers acquired were going to be 2014 Kershaw. There is even less evidence that they were going to be terrible. 2. There were only a couple of pitchers in the FA class who were going to move the needle and one of them was a guy we let go. (I did not love this) 3. The failures in 2014 were offensive - not exclusively of course but if you sliced the blame pie, the largest slice by far was for the lineup - they proactively addressed this. (and to be fair, those actions have largely been good so far) 4. The trade market was not going to open up in the offseason - nobody is bleeding money, and because of the 2nd wild card spot - almost every team can/has to sell postseason possibility to its fans and benefactors. The trade the Sox want was going to have to wait - the key is to be around long enough to do so. Frankly coming into this season the expectation (not hope) was that the rotation could consistently spit out starts like Buchholz had yesterday. Not amazing, not horrendous - but don't screw up the offense's work and hand it over to the bullpen. The problem has been the former has not been good enough to withstand crappy starts nor good enough to carry "okay" ones. That has to change - and given some of the BABIPs, that is a strong bet. And, as shaky as this stretch has been ... the larger thesis of "hanging in" still holds.

You mean like sign the top free agent pitcher on the market and upgrade the defense on paper like in 2010?

If someone is busting out the "generational fan" thing, it sounds awfully close to the Dan Shaughnessys of the world who are a bit bummed out the team is not poetically cursed. But as far as the "aren't good" thing - 14-17 does not warrant a medal, but it is still very early. The run differential is a bit more alarming although almost all of the negative differential came in 2 games. (I'm not writing those games off - but it does skew the total a tad)

The lineup issues have been baffling. But there has also been a lot of bad BABIP luck, Betts and Ortiz in particular.

If the last decade+ of Red Sox baseball is not going to get you to enjoy baseball a bit more - as Satchmo said, if they don't know you can't teach em

There is some merit although SSS abounds for the catchers - the more important thing is that there is little here that a few of our hitters who are supposed to be decent being decent can't fix.

I have my doubts his FIP is as good as it looks - but a .407 BABIP just ain't gonna keep coming either. That a guy has been worse than last year while walking fewer guys and striking out more of them (without a spike in home runs) is plain goofy.

A team that plays half its games in Fenway is current DEAD FLIPPIN LAST in the AL in doubles - that seems impossible.

Palmer can be annoying - I live in DC so I get to hear a lot - although compared to FP on the Nationals broadcast it is no comparison. Palmer gets a bit snooty - those many years on ABC can puff up a head.

Who was comparing Porcello to McNally? You were the one who used the fact that Porcello was not one of the Tigers top 2 starters as a basis to bleat about him. I brought up McNally (or Dobson, or Palmer) for the exact same reason. To use that fact without acknowledging the rotation from whence it came is silly.

behind Cuellar, Palmer and Dobson ... that would make him their #4 ... you're the one that chose not to normalize for team. Using your logic it took John Smoltz 5 years to break out past being merely a #3 starter.

Other pitchers in Porcello's cohort the last 3 seasons 2014: Justin Verlander, Chris Tillman, John Lackey, We-Yin Chen, Alex Cobb, Zack Wheeler 2013: Ervin Santana, Jorge De La Rosa, John Lackey, Julio Teheran, Kris Medlen, Andy Pettitte, Shelby Miller 2012: Jeff Samardzija, Matt Moore, Jon Lester, Ryan Vogelsong, Chris Capuano, Yovani Gallardo, Tim Hudson Porcello has always never been higher than a number 3 on his own team - then again, in 1971 Dave McNally was a #4 starter.

If you look at 2014 fWAR rankings, 2.5 WAR of Porcello put him at #40 among ALL Qualified pitchers. So, do you think you can fish in the pool every year for a Top 40 pitcher - I mean, do you think you can trawl for John Lackey (2.4 fWAR 2014, 2.5 fWAR in the championship season) every single year? I thought I was an optimist.

Victorino won't be here long either way ... and Castillo's deal is very tradeable IF there is a reason to do so

But let's take improvement off the table .. just using ordinary baseball salary escalation ... how much money would you have to spend to buy four 2014-5 Rick Porcellos over the next 4 seasons? Let's take things systematically ... In 2009, the median payroll was 81.6M. In 2015, it's 116.7M. You turn that into a constant growth rate, and you get a salary escalation of 6.1% (about 3-4 times the core inflation rate). So what would you pay for $X of 2015 performance from 2016-2019? 1.06X + 1.12X + 1.19X + 1.26X = 4.63X Setting it to $80M, and you get $17.3M worth of 2015 performance. So even at $6M per WAR (which might be low for a team like Boston), averaging 2.9 WAR per year justifies the contract. UPDATE: If you want one estimator of $/WAR, let's look at the Jon Lester signing. Lester's 2015 salary is 20M. His ZIPS/Steamer average projection is 3.4 WAR (and you figure Theo's front office is using some sort of team proprietary flavor of something like this). So that takes you to an implied $/WAR of $5.9M for the Cubs who are in the same business ballpark as Boston roughly (perhaps a slightly lower cost of living). So the $6M per WAR seems reasonable, possibly low.

It was hard not to like the Porcello extension - you get his 26-30 years, where you can easily project a year or two of improvement ... and you try to put a defensive team around him which will benefit his superficial numbers more than the squad in Detroit ... that can add up quickly and make the contract a net plus without stretching expectations too hard.

The odds of Lester remaining a #1/2 over the 6 years is basically nil - if you defend resigning him (like I did), it was because you thought he could remain a #3/#4 sort of starter by the end of the deal, and that a gradual decline combined with the excellent durability would make the deal a net plus. I don't blame the Red Sox for their evaluation - although I am not sure I agree with it.

He used "you're" - I remain skeptical of the rest of the post

One of the weird quirks about Buchholz' season ... his K-rate is UP (27.9%), his walks are down (6.9%) and his FIP is actually outstanding (2.97). and the batted ball statistics are basically identical to his norms. The .407 BABIP has been the real bugaboo. I am not going to say this is all luck or anything - but Buchholz has the ERA of a terrible pitcher with the fundamentals of a pretty good one.

They have not fallen out of the race. The potential rotation improvements in the trade market ain't going anywhere for another month at the earliest (Cole Hamels, Phil Hughes, Jorge De La Rosa - whomever). Potential rotation improvements on the farm ain't comin for another month at the earliest. SOmehow I don't think Mookie Betts' 250 BABIP is forever. Or Papi's .265 (although he has had over a season of crappy luck on that front). Or Napoli's .177.

I'd also add that if Hanley is out for a significant haul - you probably are looking at Castillo anyway which might not be as big a dropoff

I didn't - that's what median means. The Red Sox are a .500 ish team who have gotten some pitching which is even worse than what I expected ... and by expected I mean what a reasonable person would expect from the starters. The offense has been good despite Betts and Ortiz not launching yet fully.

But I think you hit on the disagreement. Using a basic discounted return on investment idea, you do have to project a growth rate in the inflows. That's what the Red Sox were doing - because of where he is as a 26 year old. Now if you think that is not likely, that certainly is a reasonable POV. I happen to disagree because 26 year olds improve all the time.

The team is above .500 and right in the middle of a very very muddled division with this level of starting pitching. The rotation needs to get better to be taken seriously as a contendah, but the upgrade to make a dent in this 5-team muck in the AL East only has to be a small one. It could be as simple as replacing one set of starts with Eduardo Rodriguez' potentially.

If a team is worried about a catcher's game calling - they're going to just let him flail without sending some signs over? That seems awfully naive. Game calling is an excellent skill - but if a kid is young, other folks can provide help. And at the end of the day, you're going to put down a sign the pitcher agrees with - because it's ultimately on his execution.