sk7326

Felix to a degree, but he has also pitched demonstrably better than Shields (or Price or just about anybody else). And a lot of the evaluation comes about how much the team behind him helps. It is one of the interesting areas of debate - I get conflicted too. Shields gives up more batted balls than the other guys, and can he still hold up without a great defense behind him. I think he's a good pitcher no doubt.

Shields is definitely one of those guys for whom WAR flavor matters a lot - he has been near the equal of the guys mentioned in a lot of ways. Depending on how you look at things, you can argue he has gotten (from his park and from his teammates) the most help too. It is an interesting evaluation. I have zero issue with giving him 5/110. On a staff like this he gives them a lot of certainty. There won't be an ace in the "conquering hero" sense, but a rotation full of starters who can win the day.

Sure it can. Shields has spent his entire career playing in ideal run prevention environments. He has played for teams whose homes were pitchers parks, and who were elite defensive lineups. His peripherals are not in the Darvish/Felix/Price realm by any stretch. Now he does compare favorably with 2011-2013 Lester - but that Lester does not compare with the guys I mentioned either. (2014 was the best Lester season since 2009) It's also why I have been comfortable calling Lester (pre 2014) as a fringy #1 starter and excellent #2 (which is not a dig at all, still very much worth the contract he got). Can Shields remain durable for 5 more years - sure. Can he still have the sexy numbers moving into less pitching friendly environs for the first time? I doubt it - but for him to be valuable he probably doesn't have to.

Gallardo. Now I think the Brewers can get more.

Agree - I would say a BAD performance in the AFL would say more than a good one. The former says you can't hack it.

Not that much - the Yankees were a negative run differential team in 2013 too ... and made a bunch of moves which improved them on paper, but quite little for the money when the Cano stuff was factored in. I am not denying the Red Sox struggles - I am talking about relative upsides. The Red Sox have a wider range of outcomes, but a far higher ceiling.

I don't know how much expansion changed that really. Even the most monstrous mismatch in baseball is a 60-40 proposition. (after all, the range of best-worst in baseball is generally equal to a 6 to 9 win team in football) And with the rotating of starters, even the worst team in baseball can put the best team on the field occasionally. Put simply, the "best team" in a classic sense doesn't win - often. It's just how baseball is designed compared to football (where it is rare) and the NBA (where it is even rarer).

It is the funniest thing about baseball - the things that can get you through a monthlong tournament are much different than what gets you through the regular season marathon. It's why seasons like the 2013 Sox (and to be fair, all three of our title sides) are remarkable.

Castillo is largely an unknown set of tools - his AFL tour proved little (all it could have proved is that he is way over his head). Ramirez' reputation spawns from stuff many years old. He was terrific for the Dodgers. He asked to move off of SS this time around because he wants to preserve his body (when in the past others asked him to leave because he was bad at it), so I don't expect him to balk at the arrangement. He came back to the Sox due to previous relationships in part - so this should be ok. There are some ifs - the natural aging curve as well as whether playing LF indeed allows him to 1) improve his defensive value which is negative as a SS, and 2) the less demanding position helps him physically. I am positive on the ifs given that he is a good athlete who has a good approach at the plate.

I imagine that is much of Cherington's chore the rest of the summer (and one he does well, since the ownership knows nothing about this part of the gig) is finding arms. How do you staff a bullpen - throw stuff at the wall until it fits. Middle relievers are wholly fungible - indeed if they don't deal them I imagine somebody like Ranaudo will get a look in the bullpen.

Short answer is no. What I am curious about is whether Petit's success in San Francisco can give some new credence to the idea of true multi-inning relief options. Obviously the days of Rich Gossage are over - which is fine. But can you plan fifty 40 pitch outings to get 100 innings of value out of somebody? What the current hyper specialization has done is create 12 pitcher rosters, which in a 25 man world is frankly insane. Fundamentally closing is not a difficult job as defined in 2014. I do think though that regular season bullpen use is much different than postseason. In the former, it makes sense to have starters work out of jams - try to get guys into the 7th inning even if it might not be a "winning" strategy all the time. You don't want to demolish your staff to chase wins ideally. I think in the postseason the rules change - you give your starter one time through the order and then you are on watch.

The last two years, the preseason gap between 1st and 5th has been very small - that is still largely the case. Now I feel less confident about 2015 than 2013 because 2013 required FAR less uncertain stuff to go right. (I've highlighted how little their best players actually played in 2012) Now we are counting on Ramirez to be an effective LF, Masterson to rebuild himself into a solid starter and Porcello making a leap which scouting sorts saw in him. That's a lot of IFs, And that does not include stuff which I am confident in that is not set in stone (Bogaerts and Betts making jumps). That said, last year had a ton of "left side of the bell curve" outcomes for guys without any real obvious cause (like age). One thing about the Ramirez and Sandoval signings which critics overlook is that - THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE THAT GOOD. Now it'd be nice if they were awesome - that's a lot of money - but the Red Sox production at those two positions (3B in particular) were so woeful that Sandoval, by just being a living, breathing decent third baseman is probably 4 wins right there. What I would observe is that the Yanks have much much less upside than the Celtics - negative run differentials the last two years without much actual youth besides Betances and Tanaka to address things.

He just made it to AAA by the end of last season, so him taking over next season is not a reasonable ask. That said, AAA is no longer a developmental level. (industry-wide it is used more as a taxi squad than anything) So that he is starting there means that the team expects him to make a cup of coffee appearance in September (or at least that is the target). I do not expect Swihart to contribute significantly next year. Given the leap he made last season, it is POSSIBLE that he could though.

Almost all of them are inferior receivers to Ross. Now, a guy like Soto or Laird makes sense if you are not thinking Vasquez is an everyday guy. But for the limited job quals, it's fine. If this were a starting gig I'd have a different pov.

If Vasquez is your 120 start guy and Swihart is genuinely not ready ... you got to fill the 40 with somebody. Better a good receiver who can help the staff than a no-catch guy. A two young guy jobshare is not an optimal use of resources here.

That is the "depends on the trade" thing. The system has some excellent depth - so cashing in some of it is not unreasonable at all. If the Hamels trade did obliterate that depth then there is an issue. But if you are going to go fishing for "qualified" free agents, a year where you have a protected first is the time to do it.

Depends on the trade but Hamels. Better pitcher now, likelier better pitcher in 4 years, his salary is completely reasonable for his caliber. That said, this is the offseason the sign Shields where the Sox have a protected 1st rounder. But the years could bother me pretty quickly.

Very simple (OK, not that simple - since there is no such thing as NO, but the price is higher than the market would reasonably pay): NO: Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart ... combo of upside and probability too high MAYBE BUT THIS BETTER BE GOOD: Owens, Rodriguez, Margot ... first two are pitchers, little more uncertainty than hitters due to arm stuff, Margot still a bit far from bigs TRADE FILLER: Cecchini, Merrero, Vasquez, any other pitcher ... either upside questions (Vasquez, Merrero, Cecchini) with good probability, or probability questions (Barnes) with good upside. PROBABLY BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE BAD DREAMS ABOUT IT: Ball, Sam Travis, Michael Chavis, Michael Kopech, Rafael Devers ... just so far from the bigs right now that there is a calculated reason to include them in a trade that can help Boston now. But good chance these guys will blossom elsewhere and give you an ulcer when the big leaguer's contribution has passed.

A fossil who is perfect for the job carved out for him.

Life with a work swell and following around a 2-year old. Masterson's splits have been ghastly his whole career - that arm slot just doesn't create deception against lefties. That worries me, although I think he could be a phenomenal super reliever if a manager were creative (which won't happen here, but just putting that out there). At the same time, he is very durable and is certainly better than the 2014 model. The Red Sox have turned to durability with their rotation choices - which is smart. After losing Lester, it would have been nice to see a corresponding Wow move, but those plays aren't out there. Right now this gives them a rotation that (assuming Buchholz returns to say 2/3 of his 2013 incarnation) will be competitive every night, and plus on many of them. That, with an offensive uptick, is an 85-90 win team. I like that this keeps them from doing something stupid to get a Cueto or Hamels.

THIS. I don't love the Sandoval signing - especially when it turned out Josh Donaldson was available. But there is enough potential in the Sandoval signing to see value and even a little bit of improvement, enough that I won't be sticking pins in my Cherington voodoo doll or anything. What I will offer on their moves this offseason is that as much as the Lester business hurts (and it does) ... the Red Sox are better equipped to handle the marathon of the regular season pitchingwise than they were last year. Where Lester's loss hurts in particular will be if boston is lucky enough to get to big fall baseball games. But as of now, I think the Red Sox are plus in 3 of the rotation spots, and maybe 4. With some offensive improvement, that can get the team solidly into the 85-90 win fray.

Went away? It was ever thus. I feel your frustration. However - they moves they made otherwise (I know, there's a "how did you like the play Mrs Lincoln" feel to that quip) have been good. The only way to combat the loss of a guy Lester's caliber is either A) with another guy of Lester's caliber or genuine depth in the rotation. The Red Sox have solidly addressed and there is still enough assets to address A) but on their terms. Are they a better team on paper now than they were in August? Without a doubt yes.

Not much to say about the Lester thing. Would a market-ish offer have gotten him signed before free agency? It's possible - but clearly they played the FA game poorly. On the bright side they did put humpty dumpty back together decently. Both trades for pitchers were solid. The Masterson signing is low risk high reward, but I don't trust that he'll ever figure out a way to get lefties out consistently. But the rotation depth is now legitimately good, and allows them to not deal from desperation for one of the premium guys.

Your writing off of Bogaerts flies in the face of everything we have ever known about competitive sports from youth level on ...

Sale is an elite starter - and yes the sort of guy you move top prospects for. There is a bit of risk - because his delivery looks like it should kill him, but it hasn't so far and he warrants some benefit of the doubt there. One thing we have seen in this market though which is interesting is that pitching is generally cheaper than we think it is (in prospects at least) and hitters are more expensive than we thought. It might reflect a changing industry view, a change in industry supply:demand mechanics.