moonslav59

I agree, and I also think if the plan is to go for it in 2025 or 2026, there is a good chance Monty will still be plus.

I think how many of these guys we have to cycle through will be telling number for how good our pen will be. For every new pitcher we use, if means someone failed or got hurt. If we can keep the amount of RP'ers to a minimum, it will most likely mean we found the 12-16 who do okay, and did not need replacing. Instead of 7 guys over 40 IP, make it 8-9. Instead of 7 guys from 20 IP to 39 IP, make it 8-9. Instead of another 9 guys from 6 IP to 19 IP, make it 2-4. Instead of using 25 RP'ers with 2.1 or more IP, like in 2023, use 16-20.

I do consider him a hero. I do think the 4 year deal after that heroic season was okay. I'm defending Nate.

I keep saying OK, which is not "good."

I agree with your point, but how many SP'ers were on the Sox for all 4 years of the sample we are looking at? BTW, ERod had a 7.1 bWAR from 2019-2022 to Nate's 7.0 bWAR. ERod missed 2020, but thats till counts. He was with DET in 2022, otherwise, he'd have had a higher bWAR than Nate. (Note: in just 2 seasons: 2019 and 2021, he had a higher fWAR than nate's 4 seasons.) Sale was here for the 4 years, but missed time. All the others have 1-2 year sample sizes in that 4 year stretch, so the statement, "highest WAR" in 4 years rings a little hollow, or needs some serious context, IMO. fWAR 2019-2022 7.6 ERod 7.4 Nate 6.9 Sale +Price or 6.3 Pivetta + Price Cobble together some 1 year guys: 2.3 Price in '19 0.4 Perez in '20 1.8 Houck in '21 1.8 Hill in '22 6.3 Total, which is pretty close to nate's total. Using bWAR 2.1 Sale in '19 1.3 Houck in '20 (just 3 GS) 2.5 Pivetta '21 3.3 Wacha in '22 9.2 total to Nate's 7.0 bWAR

The signing was okay- not good. Most deals like this, you figure the last year will not be worth it. You hope for 3 good years out of 4. The 2020 season was a mess, so it's hard to judge that year. (He started 9 of 2 starts.) He basically had 2 good year out of the 3. 2020 was not bad. 2022 was not bad. Missing 16 out of 45 possible starts. That's not good, at all, but his ERA+ those years were 129 in '20 and 109 in '22. 2019 was bad. Only 12 GS with 9 RP games and an 81 ERA+. From 2020-2022, he started 61 out of 77 games with an ERA+ of 120 and an FIP of 3.43. That is pretty good. The 2019 makes the whole deal just OK.

How good would they have been with the Sox D, last year?

I hope you are right. I think he might take a 4 year deal with a hefty buyout on the 5th year option. Maybe $90M/4 with a $8M buy out on a $20M 5th year option. Essentially: $98M/4 or $110M/5

What worries me, is the Sox history of sticking to a value number and not being willing to counter a higher offer. If another team offers just slightly more, and we don't budge an inch, I'll be even more pissed than I am, now, with JH.

If the money is such a scary thing, just demand that there be no "no-trade" clause.

The prices have been going up, pretty steadily, so the hype did have some reasoning behind it, but it looks like just a handful of teams are going nutty with spending, and what they paid did not "set the price" for those looking to sign with non-nutty teams.

If we lose out on Monty, I'd bite the bullet on Bauer and give $500K more than the highest bidder. Promise him a SP slot, once in shape.

Why invite someone to the MLB complex and not play them?

The other thing about those big trades for pitchers, is that they all were extended, some at near FA market value, so it was really more than just the trades. We dished out big money for all of them. Pedro was extended shortly after the trade for a discount rate, but it only looks real good now, because of the sharp rise in salaries, after the extension. Schill was extended for a short period, and he was injured. The Beckett extensión was a lot of money, back then, but it was money well spent. The Sale extension was a total flop, but again, he got near FA money and length, at the time. The Porcello extension worked out okay, despite a bad year and a so-so one. The Nate extension was okay, but not really all that good. That's 6 trades and extensions (or re-signings.) As a group, they do compare favorably to the biggest FA signings: Price Lackey Dempster Clement Perez+Richards Wacha+ Hill Kluber

2019-2022 Sox SP'ers IP Leaders: 408 Nate (not great, but with 2020, it's not horrific) 361 ERod 345 Pivetta ~300 Perez + Richards 196 Sale fWAR 7.6 ERod (on DET for 2022 and missed all of 2020) 7.4 Nate 4.6 Sale 4.0 Pivetta 4.0 Price + Hill 3.1 Porcello + Wacha 2.2 Perez + Richards ERA- as SP (100+ IP) 81 Wacha 86 Sale 88 Price 90 ERod 91 Nate 101 Perez 104 Pivetta & Hill 114 Richards & Porcello Nate was not paid a huge salary, and it was 4 years not 7.

Not since last summer.

We still have so many "ifs," but spring seems to bring out the bright side in me. I'm feeling pretty good about Houc as the #5, too. I'm not sure, if it was the facial surgery or something else, but the guy has some very nasty stuff- maybe some of the best on the staff. The part about having extreme difficulty with batters the third time through is well-documented, but in these days, SP'ers going just 4 to 5 IP is not the big drag it used to be. Our pen should be able to handle that, as long as Wink and Whit stay there, and the other 4 starters aren't going 4 IP, too. I'm not going to go back and copy and paste the post that showed how all 5 of these guys have had long and solid stretches, as SP'ers, in recent years. Gio has had full seasons of success; Pivetta has had several 20-24 GS streaks of very solid pitching, Crawford's was just last year, Bello's, too and Houck had his own a couple years back. I think the pen will be fine, but only if our starting 5 rotation gives us 140-145 GS, minimum. That is likely asking way too much, but these guys are young or not too old. They are approaching prime or in prime (Gio,) right now. When I look at the list of 33 pitchers used in 2023 (27 over 6 IP, 23 over 11 IP and 20 over 21 IP,) I can't help but think there is a lot of room for improvement, if we don't have to keep searching for capable #7 and #8's in the pen. The ages of Jansen and Marting are worrisome, and jansen has already had some issues, but I may be in a minority thinking our pen is close to top 10 in MLB. If we could add monty, I'd be almost certain it is top 10, by adding Houck to it. A lot of the pen's success will, IMO, depend on how deep we have to go into the farm. Although I think our farm shows better depth in the pen, than previous years, I think we need to stay healthy and not have to cycle through 8-12 guys to find our 7's and 8's. Jansen & martin look solid as the 9th inning guys. Whitlock & Wink can go 2, maybe 3 IP, if needed. Bernardino & Campbell are not proven pen arms, and if they need replacing, early, it could be a tough year for our pen. Our current 7 & 8 guys look to be Slaten (Rule 5) and maybe Mata (out of options but may start on the IL.) These two are highly questionable. I get it. The chances they start the revolving door going, early, is pretty high, but call me a homer, if you wish: I like the depth beyond these 8, unless we start going to # and beyond: Weissert Murphy Z Kelly Joely Fitts (SP) Criswell (SP) Walter (SP) Gambrell (SP) Then, it gets real dicey... Guerrero Politi Booser Jacques Hagenman Luetge Hoppe Benitez Olivares Wikelman, Van Belle, Dobbins, Penrod, Song

We have 20 Ciriacos!

I'm not shooting you. I was just curious if Cora mean MLB games to be real ones. It is a bit surprising to see him change strategy that quickly, based on what another team is doing. Maybe even concerning, a little bit. Maybe, I just want to believe he's not that easily impressionable.

1. Waiting to fix our system's pitching production line will take years. That leaves just 2 options: trading top prospects for a solid pitcher or "splurging" on one. 2. Monty and Snell were not the only two, this winter, and Monty should be fine for 3 years. On a 4 year deal, that's not a bad gamble. 3. Past failures is a major concern and warning to not go 7 years on a stud pitcher, but it does not mean it can never or never works, of that pitchers on 4-5 year deals don't "hurt as much." The Nate and Porcello signings/extensions worked out okay, as did the Lackey 5 year deal. The Price (7) and Sale (5) deals- not so well. I'm all for trying to trade for a solid and controlled SP'er, but I can understand wanting to build an inexpensive foundation, but what good is a solid foundation with no rotation? If the plan is to go large on a SP'er, next year or even 2026, I can at least understand the reasoning, but I'm not so sure it will happen, even that soon/far away.

How many times do they invite players to ST'ing and never play them?

Agreed. I'm just not so sure the day will come when we splurge on a SP'er, anytime soon.

Did he mean MLB (non spring training) game before June 21st? We knew he was invited to ST'ing, so that usually means playing in ST'ing games.

I think the media and fans have the perception GG is talking about, but when I hear the word "industry," I think players, coaches, GMs and maybe baseball analysts.

The whole one year and done plan for SP'ers is a joke. Even if we did a little better with our choices, it would not have made a big enough impact to make us contenders. The weird part is, besides the lost 2020 season, our SP'er choices for 2021, the year we went pretty far, look the worst of the last 4 years, in terms of results per dollar spent. 2021: Richards $10M & Perez II $5M 2022: Wacha $7M & Hill $5M 2023: Kluber $10M 2023: Giolito $19M I've said this before, but you get what you pay for. We did actually offer Nate and Eflin multi year deals that matched or exceeded what they ultimately signed for, but of course the best two went elsewhere. Our biggest expenditures on SP'ers, since Lackey: Price $217/7 '16 Porcello $82.5M/4 "16 Eovaldi $68M/4 '19 Sale &145M/5 '20 (contract extended in 2019) We have not signed a pitcher to a multi-year deal in 5 years, unless you count Whitlock's $19M/4 extension that kicked in in 2023. You get what you pay for, and one year pitchers rarely work out- for obvious reasons.