sk7326

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.

Rob Bradford said absolutely not ... other reporters agreeing, that the Cubs are going to be on the podium, but they absolutely have not won the bidding yet. That said, a report like this might indicate that the show is wrapping up soon.

Their best fielding coach is in Boston already ... the 350 or so PAs that XB did not get at SS did not help. Key will be Farrell (and the org) having conviction with evaluations. Bogaerts' case history is positive for him figuring much of this stuff out.

What I am sure of is - the trade had zero to do with Lester's opinion of the Sox one way or the other. He was not blindsided and he went to a contender. Earlier offers may have soured him, but not the trade.

Oh I think the Red Sox are in play ... they offered 6 years, that is a credible offer. The money part of it can be fixed, but the commitment to the years is what keeps them in contention. The Red Sox obviously did not lock him up with the offer they made earlier in the year - the question is how much value does incumbency really have with an elite free agent? I don't know - but I am not sure it's all that much.

He has the freedom to look at anybody who offers him a job. Just like you or I do (granted a shade more leverage). Ultimately it is a personal/family decision - won't begrudge him either way. Loyalty is the sort of standard we apply to players and not to ourselves in this area.

Add Samardzja and you probably have most of the shopping list.

A kid who did not have a good year at AA for Baltimore - or at least a "Cecchini at AAA" sort of season which could have soured internal opinion of him in Baltimore. You look at who Rodriguez was, a toolsy raw pitcher - and Duquette's team probably saw enough rawness to think that his probability is not good. Baltimore also was chasing a big prize - so they were willing to overpay some anyway. (the way you'd expect Boston to if there was a chance to win a title) Sox were the beneficiaries. Just some differing incentives at work.

Certainly true. But when you look at his developmental history and makeup, he has shown an ability to make those adjustments. (compared to say Middlebrooks who got by on athletic ability) I do think the Drew thing muddled up the adjustment period. (and the Sox dithering generally) Obviously the adjustment is on him - so I am not just saying it will magically happen. But his past work at lower levels gives a lot of reason to stick it out, especially given how young he is for the level.

Currency. Just like Cecchini. He undoubtedly can play SS for SOMEBODY, and perhaps even well (the glove is clearly good - not Iglesias good, but good). Brandon Crawford makes a nice living. I think this is the sort of evaluation you are making internally all the time as a franchise. Which prospects are our future guys and which ones are trade pieces. Obviously the venn diagrams intersect some but for teams like the Sox and Yankees who yes "should" be putting together a contender every year - sitting on the prospect haul a la some college football team flat doesn't make sense. Right now to me Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart represent future core - there is no such thing as untouchable, but you definitely need premium, controllable big league value coming back. Owens, Rodriguez, Margot are a half step down. The former two because they are pitchers (and there is always a wee bit extra risk with pitchers generally) and the latter because he is not at AA yet. (remarkable ceiling but still quite a bit of variance in his ultimate fate) Then you start getting into your Cecchini, Bradley, Merrero, the rest of the Ranaudo, Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes level. There are starters here, but probably not elite ones - and the industry is in relatively sharp disagreement over what the best of this crop actually is. You are dealing either with high upside/low probability (De La Rosa, Bradley at this point) or low to modest upside with high probability (Vasquez, Merrero). This is where the trade stuff comes from ideally - because other teams have favorites from this list. Then I think you also have the guys like Devers, Chavis, Ball, Sam Travis. High ceiling again, but low probability just by virtue of how far away they are from the show right now. These are the ones I agonize about because I like them and if you trade to fill a current need, they are ones likely to make developmental leaps which put egg on your face.