sk7326

I sympathize with them on Hamels ... a little. That's a lot of control at a good price for a good pitcher - he should be asking for a lot. Lee is a different animal. That they agreed to trade Rollins this year does speak to some level of reality on their behalf.

Considering you did not list either of last year's finalists, that sort of makes the point. Non-great teams win the baseball title all the time (considering the different between a good team and a dark horse is the equivalent of the difference between a 10-6 and 9-7 team in NFL parlance, no wonder).

Right now, lot easier to list the teams that DON'T have a legitimate shot at the World Series ... this is baseball, you get in the tournament you have a legit shot. Just nature of the beast. (Colorado, Arizona, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Houston, Minnesota) and one of those will probably be able to lie to themselves for a little while. 2013 had a few extraordinary years and a lack of injury luck, luck they basically hadn't had in earnest since 2009. Last year was just a long series of underperformance. 2015's fortune requires development of folks who have shown considerable promise (Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo, Porcello) which is not unreasonable, but requires a bit more uncertainty than 2013 where you were just hoping guys could take the field.

I dispute that there are kool-aid drinkers out there in that way. Or at least I would hope not. The biggest pitcher the Sox have landed at the deadline in my memory is Mike Boddicker (and he cost quite a bit clearly - Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling although Schilling would have to go through 2 more orgs to blossom). I don't think it is a given a move will be made, but it's on the team and staff to create the impetus.

Right, the opt-out which set up a real albatross scenario. Sabbathia was arguable the AL's best pitcher before then - but definitely wandering into the deep water performance wise for a guy who had as many miles as he had.

I don't see that. What I see are some guys (count me here for what its worth) who see this rotation as something that can be good enough to not kill this team while the starting pitching trade market opens itself up. Now, I wish we had kept Lester. His contract demands were fair, and the probability of the contract being a net plus was solid to me. But he is gone. So you move to the next thing - would signing Max Scherzer and James Shields for $45-$50M be able to be a net improvement on last year's rotation. Personally, I think the answer was yes - but not by THAT much, and certainly not commesurate with the AAV difference. Scherzer probably offset Lester, but Shields big trait given the change of environment was going to be durability. So once you decide Scherzer and Shields were not worth the price and years - what is next? Where is that crackerjack Top 2 guy to land? The guys they DID land were about as good as you were going to get from the "everybody else" pile when you consider that A) most teams are doing well financially and most teams cannot credibly wave the white flag on the 2015 season in December. The only way that trading partners will show up is when teams start to fall out of the chase. Past history is no real guidepost here because the Red Sox did not have A) the job opening and the varied portfolio of tradeable stuff. I don't love this course of action - but I am not sure there was any alternative one given the scene after Lester went west.

The industry whiffs a lot on kids because they are kids. Full stop. The Beane story is funny. In Moneyball you see the emphasis on stats and the eschewing of high school kids because performance was harder to measure. But the weird result of going in on that thinking is that Oakland (and Toronto under Ricciardi)'s system started to sag because there were no stars. And so Oakland is back going to high schools and looking at kids with superior tools and whatnot. After all if a franchise has a high percentage hit rate for its prospects, but those prospects are Deven Merrero and Dan Butler, that is still a 60ish win team.

Sabbathia is key. He is not going to be the league's best pitcher again (which he has been before, and the Yankees got a taste of it before the baffling extension). But if he can give them 180+ competitive innings, that will help. The last 3 seasons the AL East was 100% unpredictable, and it still remains. If you say you know who will finish 1st and 5th, you are deluding yourself. After all, Boston had the most theoretical improvement (headlines), Yankees helped the pitching staff, Toronto got the best player moved this offseason (Donaldson), Tampa still has a lot of talent and Baltimore lapped the division last year so have they really lost all that much to the rest?

Who doesn't like overachievers? After all, that's what Bogaerts and Betts are - or at least what you call guys who crush levels they shouldn't be able to compete at normally. Coyle is an interesting guy - 30 homeruns in the last 140+ games is nothing to sneeze at. At the same time, the frame is tiny, and looking at the scouting reports there is a guy who tries to hit like Dustin Pedroia without that freakish ability to get on top of high cheese. He is an interesting guy - both to watch and as potential trade part. There are probably a few places where he could play an acceptable major league 2B right now. Since I was not on the board pre-2013, I don't know how smitten the community was with Middlebrooks. At the time, I was skeptical because he was chasing everything and getting results. Without being a Nomar or Vlad sort of gift for squaring up pitches, that is a hard way to be. But he was such a good athlete that some late blooming made sense. I certainly thought the org and fans were hasty anointing Will as the solution - and his inability to improve himself has been fatal combined with the injuries. Reddick is an interesting case too - unlike Will he does lots of things at a legitimately good major league level. He just has poor plate discipline - although in Oakland a couple of years ago he improved things enough to allow the total package to shine through. Frankly, that was my wish for Middlebrooks. He was never going to be a Mike Napoli at the plate - but if he could have worked on his defense and been able to produce a .310 sort of OBP with a lot of power behind it - that is a solid starter. But alas. Once he declined to take some AFL reps I was done. That said, if he figured some things out in SD, I would not be stunned - good athletes are still worth betting on. Guys don't get promoted without some performance under the tools - that's why my crush now is Rafael Devers. Clearly, there is still a ton to be written about his future - he could flame out. But you talk about a guy who put up a .900 OPS in his first taste of pro ball as the third youngest kid there, who is already 6 feet, 200 lbs and will be 18 the entirety of next season, and whose power and athleticism have left scouts shaking their head. He's the guy in the system who could be a future MVP. (Margot's upside is MVP production but voters like chicks dig the long ball) BTW: It's the funny part of the Sandoval signing. By no means should a big league club not fill a vacancy at 3B because of some 17 year old who just finished short season ball. HOWEVER, there is a small but legitimate possibility that Devers could be the sort of freight train which will force the org to rethink the 3B situation much sooner than anybody is thinking. I am excited.

Eovaldi's FIP/xFIP was 3.37/3.78 Porcello was 3.67/3.68 So if there was a difference it was pretty small and potentially could be normalized away. I expect a lot from both guys. Yankees had a good offseason with the pitching staff, although the lineup maintains its issues. I am sure the Yankees will be a positive run differential team for the first time since 2012 - whether it translates into more actual wins or not is a bit of a coin flip.

When you look at the major signings - Edwin Jackson was basically there because somebody had to pitch. Hammel was a buy low which paid off very well. Soler is winning a Cuban auction - there you go. One good thing about working for the Cubs is that issues the fans have with the team can be defrayed by the fact you are probably blowing off work to go see them. I think this year definitely a leap has to be shown. The crazy haul of position prospects and bats needs to lead somewhere. Year 4 of a farm rehab type of rebuild should start to bear something - even if it is individual somethings. Fans are pretty smart - and will endure a rebuild, but at some point at least a couple of the "kids on their way" should be arriving. It's the reason you lay out for Maddon, who with Francona and Showalter are the best managers equipped at playing and improving kiddos when they're about to arrive.

Using my best Wallace Shawn voice, it's inconceivable that the Red Sox will stand pat with this rotation. It is also inconceivable that they would publicly acknowledge it, fess up their strategy and undercut the starters they do have. Every GM/coach says "I'm happy with our guys", it's right there with "I can't believe he was at this draft position". They didn't gather all of these "good contract outfielders" to play them little league style.

Shields will have the season he always does - because he went to the sort of place where he always produced the seasons he does. I mean aside from his amazing ability to take the ball, it is hard for me to see him as that much of an upgrade over the current rotation.

Yes. Enough? Different questions. With the 2nd wild card - they can at least put themselves in the mix - but then so can a lot of teams. This probably does put them firmly in the Top 3 in that division - so that is a start.

Probably little from column A, little from column B. It's a reasonable move for San Diego. They clearly are trying to turn things around quickly. Whether or not this is a smart way to do it, I do respect the pro-activeness.

It's possible - I don't find it particularly hopeful. Last year names moved - significant ones too - for a fairly modest return all things considered. I think the time of a 1997 Pedro Martinez being available for financial hardship reasons during the offseason are basically over. I mean outside of the Twins, Astros and Phillies, Diamondbacks and Rockies - everybody else can at least sell the playoffs as a possibility right now. And this is not the NBA where being a lower seed might just be setting yourself up to be a punching bag - getting in the tournament means a real chance to win the whole thing. Can the Sox hang in long enough to be buyers? Let's put it this way, last year everything went wrong - and the Sox could not really hit the eject button until the All-Star Break. The 2nd WC position means as bad as Boston was, they were just a 15-5 stretch away from fixing things. All you have to do is expect this year to be better than last - in any form - and I think the Sox will be in a position to buy.

I am very bullish on XB. For guys his age, the jumps are often not steady and they can be large. He also has been able to figure things out at every level he has played at. The suggested line I think could be - not the floor but a relatively pessimistic outcome.

Miley has a chance to get to 200+. Porcello is probably a safer bet. If Allen Craig has that find of slash line .280/.360/.440 or whatever, that will give the Sox a very large portfolio of assets to go get a starter. Prediction here is that they do - might be Johnny Cueto, might be Yovani Gallardo, might be somebody who nobody is pegging right now. I also don't think we'll have to wait til the deadline to find out.

Note that no team which played in a hitter-friendly environment wanted to pay him. I don't want to appeal to authority (you know, say they know better than us - which is a copout), but it is instructive that Team Petco was the one that landed him. Shields is going to have a very good season superficially, maybe more than that. But Shields has consistently pitched in places where his stuff played up. The Yankees, the Red Sox, the Reds, and others were all teams with a job opening - yet none of them bit. It's hard to find premium starting pitching - and Shields was not it. The market will reveal itself in late May I think as teams start to have to make the "in or out" decisions. For Boston particularly, Allen Craig's rebound is particularly important. If he is a reasonable facsimile of the 2013 version, it means the team is flush with good contracts and prospect depth to be able to solve the pitching thing. Given how modest the cost for Lester and Price turned out to be (and Price came with an extra year of control!!!) the price to actually get Cueto (for instance) could be surprising - if the Reds fall out of the chase.

Very canny move by Shields. Took his talents (again) to a place which offers a potentially optimal pitching environment. Now, on paper the Padres outfield looks ghastly compared to the really really good defenses Shields has played with in the past. At the same time Petco is where homeruns go to die - so that offsets quite a bit of that. I think that the industry clearly was skeptical about Shields' ability to play in a hitter friendly situation, and his inability to score a $20M AAV deal (despite his numbers and durability being quite justified) I think reflects that. (along with his age too of course, although the age might influence the years more than the AAV)

I think it is more that they feel like they can start the season this way. Given the population of impact starting pitching this is not unreasonable. I do think if Shields can be had for a short hitch they might call an audible. But I don't mind them balking at Shield's 34-37 years for premium dinero.

I think it's good to know them - because it's what front offices use, or at least the starting point therein (clearly when all the franchises employ analytics departments, they are doing stuff which will not make the public domain). If you (like the BBWAA old guys) focus on RBIs and pitcher wins, the sport has left you in the dust. Now it does not repudiate the value of scouting (which I think got the Ricciardi Blue Jays in trouble) - but makes the scouts smarter about what to look for.

Memories are very short ... the idea that a manager blew a title in baseball short of a World Series game is ludicrous. What is funny is that Francona is indisputably one of the two best managers of the modern era for Boston.

Such as having more of your evenings off!

It is a zero sum thing - it would be nice for players to stay longer, but that means the players do not have the freedom to switch jobs normal people have. That players move keeps interest up in lots of markets. I think the reason football lacks the parity of baseball is simply a matter of the sports themselves. If you accept that the person with the largest impact on any baseball game is the pitcher (and it is - pitching is not 90% of the game or 50% of the game, but it has more impact than any other position), then that baseball teams rotate starting pitchers means that the team fielded can vary wildly in quality. To put it another way, the 1972 Phillies went 59-97. The Phillies were 30-11 in Steve Carlton's starts that year. So for those 41 starts, the Phillies were actually pretty good relative to whom the opponent was putting out there. Because of this, even a bad team is a favorite against a good team occasionally. Football, with the dependencies on team continuity, and that the same personnel play every game (assuming health), the advantages are much more permanent. Also, physical advantages are much more profound. (size of linemen and such) A salary cap would not change this reality at all. In fact, what baseball has done with its tax system is create a system where all 30 markets are healthy and all of them can build competitive teams according to the realities of the city and fan base. Now clearly the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers have more room for error than the Rays and Royals. But the Rays and Royals can absolutely afford to keep core guys - if they don't it is because of choice. And that is all you can ask for regarding balance. Can a well managed team succeed anywhere - and the answer in baseball is hell yes.