moonslav59

He may not be quite as valuable as his contract to some GMs and posters, but he has a lot of value.

...and WAR does not factor in a lot of what catchers do.

While true, the GM needs to create a pool of players that are good enough to fill in for others and do what it takes to win it all. Maybe Hanrahan or Bailey (oe Aceves), if they stayed healthy, could have led us to a ring with Koji being a top set-up man on the team. Or not.

At the time of the trade I thought Kimbrel was a top 2-3 closer in MLB and projected to be a top 3-5 closer for the remainder of his team control years. It was never about not wanting Kimbrel or the like (and there aren't many like him, especially that come cheap). It was the same with Pom. I really liked Pom, even after he stumbled in 2016's second half a a bit. I just thought we could have used Espinoza (with others) to get Sale or Quintana (or both). I've never been big on trading top prospects for 4/5 slot starters, even though Pom showed promise of maybe being a 2/3.

I probably don't think closers are as valuable as some here, but of course they have value. I just don't want to pay a 50-70 IP guy as much as a good starter who gives me 180-220. I realize high leverage situations are very important, but to me, so are the first few innings, where the game often seems to be decided. Without very good starters, there are often much fewer save situations. The other main issue is about how to get a top closer. Free agency has been a good way, and that's how we got Foulke, but costs of closers have gone way up compared to other positions, and I can agree they probably were underpaid a decade ago. Trades are good ways to get closers, too, and the Uehara trade was one of Ben's best deals. The Kimbrel trade worked, as we got a ring, and he was a significant part of our historic 108 win regular season. Look, I loved the Sale trade. I had been scheming and suggesting trades for him for years and years. Not only was Sale a top starter in MLB, his salary was maybe 1/4th of his FA market value. The Kimbrel salary was more like a FA contract at the time of the deal and ended up being maybe 75% of top FA closer market value near the end. That's the part that bothered me, but again, we won a ring, so the deal worked out fine. Grooming a closer from within your own system is the bets way, of course, but it's not always that easy. Some could call it luck that we converted Papelbon from a starter. I'm not sure Kelly, Barnes or Brasier are closer material, just like nobody knew for sure Koji was. Koji had much better numbers for 3 years before being made a closer than anyone we have now, and talk of Feltman sounds encouraging but far away, IMO. I'd love to get a very good closer this winter, and if Henry is willing to spend enough to get someone like Eovaldi and Kimbrel/Miller/Ottavino, then I'm more than fine with the idea, unless their contracts end up keeping us from re-signing our core stars in 1-3 years. If you know me, I always go on the assumption we have an upper limit on spending. I know some disagree, and that's fine, but when I say, "Don't spend large and long on a closer," it's within the either/ or context.

dgalehouse wrote this Margot , Asuaje and Guerra were our future ? Now , three years , three A.L. East titles and one Word Series Championship later , not one of them could even crack our lineup. ...and I've heard these strawman arguments for years. I am not for hoarding prospects and never was, in fact I usually suggest trading them more often than others. I faced the same misguided criticism on the old site, too. My beef with Kimbrel was not Kimbrel's skill level. I knew he was the best (or top 3). It was not his contract. It was not the 4 prospects. It was both combined. I have looked at the trade in hindsight and said it looks a lot better for two reasons: 1) The players we dealt have not done all that great. 2) Kimbrel's contract quickly looked better in light of the exponential growth of FA closer salaries. The jump being made is that I am claiming I wanted to keep Margot, Allen, Guerra and Asuaje. Nothing is further from the truth. I must have suggested dozens of trades involving Margot and/or Guerra... just not for players making $13M and only pitching 50-65 innings a year. If someone wants to argue the value of the closer as being higher than what I think it is, fine. I get those arguments. If someone wants to claim that in hindsight, the deal looks pretty good, I can't argue too much. If someone wants to claim I'm naive to think we could have traded that package plus another top prospect for a top starter, I'm fine with that. At least the argument is based on what my position was and still is to some extent.

How much are you prepared to risk in order to pay slightly less for an inferior closer? I'm not prepared to let Betts, Bogey, JBJ, Sale or JD walk, because our budget is too tight due, in part to Kimbrel's contract. Again, I'm assuming we have a limit, and we will reset by 2021 (maybe 2022 at the latest). If I am wrong, then sign 'em all.

I look back at the Papelbon walk and smile. Yes, he had some nice years, but he cost a lot and became a burden at the end. Yes, Koji could be considered luck by some, but he wasn't. Also, nobody is calling Eovaldi and Pearce luck. Koji had awesome numbers before Ben traded for him. It wasn't Ben's fault that Farrell had him as our 3rd or 4th closer on the depth chart. It reminds me of my days at ND, when Dan Devine had Joe Montana as our 3rd string QB the year we won the National Championship vs Earl Campbell's Longhorns. Koji before the trade: Year WHIP/K-9 '10 0.955/11.3 '11 0.723/11.9 '12 0.639/10.8 These numbers are mind-boggling great. It wasn't luck that he continued his improvement to 0.565/12.2 in 2013 and then had 3 straight years under 0.957 and above 10.5.

I really feel like I agree with you on all of this, but I'm okay with trading many prospects, if it means giving us a top chance at winning rings. We won a ring, so it's all vindicated, IMO. That's not to say, we can't argue we went farther than we needed to, or that we might have made better trades than the ones we ended up making. That's part of what this site is all about, IMO. I posted thousands of posts suggesting possible trades over the year- most of them including prospects and top prospects. I've never been for hoarding them, and I've argued that Ben was going to trade many top prospects had he stayed on as GM. Who knows, if he'd have done better or worse. It's a futile argument anyways. To me, the argument is rarely about how good did the prospect we trade end up doing, unless it's like Jeff Bagwell, but more about what else might you have gotten, or could you still be highly competitive had you not traded as many or different prospects. The list of DD's traded prospects is massive, and the jury is still long away from being out on some of them, but here is a list of all he traded as ranked by their highest ranking on soxprospects.com (granted, this is deceiving at times, because players might have reached #5 but were traded after theu slipped way down in the rankings- some we might have DFA'd eventually): 1 Yoan Moncada 3 Anderson Espinoza 3 Manuel Margot 5 Jalen Beeks 5 Bryce Brentz 5 Deven Marrero 6 Javier Guerra 7 Luis Basabe 9 Mauricio Dubon 12 Travis Shaw (not a prospect at time of deal) 12 Wendell Rijo 13 Logan Allen 18 Luis Basabe 18 Jamie Callahan 20 Carlos Asuaje 21 Jonathan Aro That's a long list, even if you cross many off the list as irrelevant.

We used 23 pitchers last year, alone, including 17 who had as many or more IP'd as Poyner (22.1 IP). I think we used 44 players in total, including Pearce, Kinsler, Phillips and a brief appearance by Pedey and 7 PAs by Butler.

I give up. You guys keep inventing a position I do and did not hold- ever.

Our other big needs are solid set-up man or men, especially if we don't get a closer and move one of our guys up, SP'er and 1B who hits lefties. It's my opinion that we should not spend so much on a closer, especially one who is showing serious signs of decline or consistency. I realize not getting a top closer (on paper) might bite us in the ass, but I think signing Kimbrel to 4+ year rates to bite us harder (maybe not in 2019). I respect your opinion, and if Henry will not let Kimbrel's contratc keep him from keeping our stars, then I'm fine with signing everyone and everybody.

Agreed. He may go on to have many great years, unlike most closers his age, but the risk reward is just too much, and we have too many other needs.

See my previous email. At the time, Kimbrel was one of MLB's top paid closer. The trade looked better afterward, when salaries sky-rocketed, but he was still paid a lot. My dislike of the trade had nothing to do with Kimbrel. I said at the time, he was a top 3 closer and rated to continue being a top 3-5 closer for the remainder of his contract (which he came close to doing until this year).

Where did I say I thought we should have kept them? I was on the record at the time and ever since, that I thought we could have done better. Those prospects were worth a lot back then. The fact that they haven't done all that well, does not mean other teams did not want them back then. My biggest beef was on the philosophy of trading so many prospects for a player making FA type money. Tears afterward, I said the trade looked better as closer contracts sky-rocketed and made Kimbrel's contract no longer "FA market rate." I even credited DD for foreseeing the sharp increase in FA closer salaries.

We didn't sign Kimbrel. I was firmly against the trade that sent 4 prospects for a closer making free agent market money at the time of the trade. I still think we could have done better, but I'm not complaining about the results. I have no beef with mortgaging the future, if you get a ring.

...and then the both of them prevented further signing.

My guess is Barnes is first in line as an in-house closer. Braiser may end up winning it.

I'm thinking something like this might work: 1) Sign Eovaldi to the least amount of years as possible. 2) Sign Kelly to the lowest AVV as possible. 3) Sign Pearce to 1-2 years. 4) Trade Johnson, Swihart and Sam Travis for a better 6th starter or nice set-up man. We start the season with this: SP: Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi, ERod, Wright (AAA-Velazquez/Shawaryn/Cuevas/Shepherd) RP: Barnes, Kelly, Brasier, Hembree, Workman, ________ (see trade above) (AAA-Poyner, Thornburg, Scott, Maddox, Walden, Lakins, Feltman) 1. Betts RF 2. Beni LF 3. Bogey SS 4. JD Martinez DH 5. Pearce/Moreland 1B 6. Devers/(Chavis) 3B 7. JBJ CF 8. Nunez/Holt 2B (Pedey) 9. Vaz/Leon Chavis or Pedey. AAA- C- Butler/Hernandez 1B- Ockimey 2B- Quiroz 3B- Hernandez (Chavis) SS- Lin LF- D Mars CF- Matheny RF- Castillo DH- Witte

I may be wrong, but I am done with Travis.

I can't imagine Moreland playing FT or using Swihart or Holt as the platoon. Chavis or JD at 1B might be aan in-house solution, but Pearce would be very nice.

I'm kind of feeling like it still hasn't sunk in all the way. Worldly events and concerns have been occupying my mind a lot, too. I'm so grateful for all these rings. 4 in 15 years is not an easy thing to do these days.

3 years with an option 4th year with a big buyout might do the trick, but if we are looking at a reset after 2020, Eovaldi puts the pressure on what young stars we can re-sign.

No mention of Chavis or Ockimey as the 25th man. I expect one will be traded, but with an opening at 1B opening up after next year, maybe we keep both. Realistically, what could we expect to get for a SP'er or pen arm for Johnson, Swihart & Chavis? Or, Hembree, Swihart & Chavis?

Maybe because he wasn't here last year, and now we win it all? To me, Betts did 3 major things: 1) He knocked in runs when not many were on base in front of him. 2) He set the able for JD and others by getting on base. (His base running helped, too.) 3) His impact on defense more than made up for any larger impact JD had on offense. Stats or no stats, to me, Betts was more impactful.