sk7326

Oh he could be the #1 on a contender - he was. Now he's not Kershaw or King Felix, but that is also all but a handful of pitchers. I blanched at giving him 6 years but a guy with a good delivery, no arm trouble and a good approach, he was a pretty good bet to hold value for the majority of the deal. The Red Sox were dogmatic about their valuation - despite it flying in the face of market realities. That's fine - but the result is what it is. His price was fair given his past, the low likeliness of being hurt, and just how everybody is swimming in money.

Oh I don't know. Porcello is a #3 sort with a #1/#2 upside (and only 26 so there is still improvement in him). Miley is a #3 sort with a #2 upside he has reached previously. Buchholz we know about. Masterson is a large risk - since unlike the other three he was genuinely irredeemably terrible. (and without the flashes Buchholz showed last season in spots) But even with Masterson, if he is healthy he is still innings filler - and if he has to be banished to the bullpen, he can be very good there. If there were franchises who had a 1998 Montreal Expos situation, I'd be more fired up about not landing a sexier pitcher in the offseason. But when you look at the Cubs and Padres - two bad teams last year - genuinely loading up to make a run this year (and the Marlins too!) and you see the effect the 2nd wild card has had. There will be ways to upgrade the rotation (like Lackey becoming suddenly available to Saint Louis) but we'll have to let the season unfold.

You are doubtlessly right in isolation - but sometimes you have to win in an auction situation. I think with the longer deals, you have to evaluate what the "low point" is. You will be overpaying for it, but if you can live with it - and get a lot of value early, it can be a fair investment. In isolation, the Angels extending Mike Trout for 10 million years seems silly - but in context they are (while risking injury clearly) actually probably underpaying if anything.

It has ...there is some luck involved. I'd expect the Sox to keep cycling through arms on that front. The only regret I had about dealing Webster and De La Rosa was the conversion possibility. That said they converted them into a durable starter, so hey.

i appreciate the concern, but the Red Sox in 2013 were on their FOURTH choice for closer before they hit the winner. Mujica is ok as a backup plan, but so could other guys ... a lot of the 9th inning job is just doing it. It's not magic.

We don't know what the bullpen will end up looking like - but psst ... we didn't know it in 2013 either and it went well

I know - but the bullpen is still best built by throwing a ton of arms at it. Some will work - others just move on. Ogando is the sort of arm to at least give a run at. Now in isolation I could say they overpaid Uehara by resigning him - but that's not really true. It's not a number that prevents them from doing anything - and it's still a short hitch.

For building a bullpen - it is the best way

Good, cheap lottery ticket

He seems to appreciate probability more than upside - which is fine but runs counter to the industry. I appreciate probability too - but (and this is where the Red Sox being a high payroll team matters) a team like Boston only needs its farm system to produce its future studs. (and maybe a lower level for starting pitcher but you get the idea) There are plenty of other avenues available to find the middle class guys which does not blow up their budget. Personally, Devers starting full season ball as an 18 year old is the most tantalizing of the possibilities, and that is not a dig at all at Margot who has been nearly as accomplished. More than anything - that the Red Sox themselves feel these guys can handle aggressive promotion and challenge says a ton.

Owens ETA could be sooner - he's starting the year in AAA after all. But I don't think the org sees him as a taxi squad guy ... whenever he comes up, he ain't going back. The other guys (and Wright is there too) are much more "shuttle-worthy".

From what I have read and seen (the latter more with Barnes) - Rodriguez has the most star potential. He is also the furthest away - fastball command, development of a second pitch, that sort of thing. But he also hung in at AA (the real weeding ground for prospects) at a young age. Johnson is probably the most polished guy in the org - but a meh fastball and no wipeout off speed pitch. But on feel and polish he can probably make some starts for the big club without embarassing anybody. Barnes has the polish expected from a college guy, but also the limited ceiling. But Barnes of the guys they ran out last year at the end, was (granted in relief mostly) the most impressive stuff outside of De La Rosa. I don't think Ranaudo ever showed that he had anything to get big leaguers out - let alone three times through a batting order. Webster will always be a tease because of his raw stuff but the feel has been late in coming.

Whatever depth you were counting on with De La Rosa, Ranaudo and Webster is merely replaced by Barnes, Johnson and Owens and (probably not) Rodriguez.

Another view of it. You can get the pitcher you want in two ways (outside of development which is a nonissue right now). You can sign it or trade for it. Right now, the sign supply is essentially nil with Lester and Scherzer gone (with very real questions about the latter given the salary that won that auction). So next is the trade supply - but in 2015 baseball that is hard to do in this environment. 1. With the economics, almost no team is desperately poor in a way that forces them to clear payroll 2. With the additional wild card, almost every team can dream of a Royals-like run. The awful truth needs a couple of months to reveal itself. Giving up the game and saying that we have to get the starter for April now now now is a recipe for a massive overvaluatiion.

I agree there has to be some projection. But the calculated bet is that between beating up on bad pitchers and hanging against the rest, there are 85 wins at least. The issue you bring up I think is much more significant in October. This goes to one of the quirks of baseball - the club that can succeed in a marathon and the club that can win the tournament require much different qualities.

Very simple - in the era of hyperspecialization, the 9th inning guy matters somewhat. HOWEVER, the last 4 world champs found their closer during the season ... Tampa's ability to create closers from other team's garbage is well documented. There is no reason to ever give a Papelbon deal to anybody, even Craig Kimbrel or Aroldys Chapman.

oh it's more than a crap shoot - the middle is actually quite good. Compare the 2-4 starters with peers in the AL and it's not bad at all. Yeah it doesn't compare to Detroit, but neither does anybody else. The first five in the rotation are all decent and young enough to project improvement to some degree or anotherr. Barnes, Johnson and Owens will all see some reps during the season. The rotation is probably one guy away, but there is time to find the guy.

I think the chances are pretty good Vasquez rises to adequate offensively. Contact rates in lower levels were good. Power was not, but he can add value offensively, no doubt. It's a good problem to have - in a sport where there is very little catching to go around, the Sox might have two true starters.

Org writeups here: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12249592/top-prospects-every-mlb-team-mlb?ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_law_topprospectseverymlbteam

Oh i don't dismiss it out of hand - but wait for injuries for that to happen. Also, the quality of his bat matters. What is interesting is that Swihart and Vasquez are so close together developmentally. If Swihart is what he is - he is here for 2016.

reduces his positional value. If he can be an All-Star catcher, then it is a poor use of resources to keep them both - and not great for either guy's career to boot.

Free Agent contracts are almost always net negatives. This is because most ballplayers don't get to FA until most of their expected peak is done. There is also the winner's curse - the game theory phemonenon - where the winning team will overpay in order to win the auction. You are (especially with premium guys) paying for non-peak years. But that's ok - doesn't mean you don't do it. But homegrown guys are the lifeblood and your best source for getting superstars while they are being superstars. Free agency is good to address very specific needs. The prospect hit rate recently has looked worse than it is - only because the expectations are always through the roof, and there flat out not the number of job openings as there are in Tampa for instance.

Disagree on Bard - he was excellent for most of the season as a setup guy. Yes, it makes sense to try every pitcher as a starter before ruling it out, that was something that had to be (and was) done on the way up. And of course how you handle prospects has to do with the kid too. Betts demolished every level before coming up - you couldn't keep him down. Bogaerts too sailed through levels legitimately. Last year was rough, but everything about Bogaerts' past says he will figure all of this out. Bradley basically got a look in 2013 on the back of a handful of spring training ABs. (and Drew's injury granted) That is silly. He LOST his CF gig on the back of Grady Sizemore's handful of spring training ABs. That was sillier. With Middlebrooks, they reacted to a hot few weeks while Youk was hurt. If anything, the org's recent issues with prospects has been dithering with them when they don't deliver orgasmic levels of joyous performance at once. I hate saying "back when Tito and Epstein were around" but there you go - Pedroia's first couple of months in a big league gig were simply awful. But the team stood by its evaluation of the player and the manager kept putting him out there. You can't have it both ways - play the kids and then penalize them for being kids.

Oh I am too - I just think there is time to figure that out. Baseball's economic health and extra wild card spot makes it harder to trade for the ace in the offseason: very few teams are truly economically under duress, and more teams than ever can credibly sell winning as an option, at least in April. The trade market needs some time to open up - so the reality of the Cueto's or David Price's can set in/not set in. I am realistic - I wish Lester stayed. But with him gone and Scherzer going somewhere else, the question is "then what". They improved the back end of the rotation - and Porcello, considering both age and performance, could provide as much value as Shields. They seriously improved the durability of the rotation - there is a lot of history of just being able to deliver solid quantity here. Do I expect this team to be the wire-to-wire best team in baseball like in 2013? No. But it is much improved from 2014, and a pretty good bet to be good enough for the sack of trade goodies to be able to deliver something better.

If the offense is 12th again, then we're SOL. But the bet is a combination of fixing the offense and just adding more decent pitchers will allay a bunch of that. The team doesn't have to beat Felix Hernandez each of the 162 times out. The staff is generally young-ish and durable. It's not sexy certainly, but a lot of the 71-91 record last year was owed to some very low ceiling guys getting a lot of starts down the stretch. The upside for the 2015 team is a lot less certain than the upside for the 2013 one (which was basically, geez, if only these guys stopped getting hurt).