moonslav59

If you only go by past WAR, why do you want Grissom. There is a disconnect, here. Also, Garver has a -0.5 fWAR, this year and -$4.1M fangraph's value. Castillo's fWAR has gone 3.9>3.7>3.3>2.4 and is now under the value of his contract: Owed $21.6M a year. Fangraph's 2024 value (with a few starts to go) is $19.0M. Let's not get caught up in WAR as telling the whole story, only when it suits your position. Garver will make close to $13M and is giving -$4M value. Castillo is paid about $21M and gives about that value. Together, using WAR and contract cost, the Sox make out worse.

But we did add WAR but not wins from 2024 to 2024. You pointed that out when I said this team is better tna 2023's.

Exactly. No matter how you look at it, we swung and missed. I think you missed my point.

I wonder how people might view or change their views on Bloom, if we win a ring (or come close) by 2027 based mainly on a core of players Bloom acquired or did not trade away. Bloom certainly made a mess of bad moves, even when considering the context of his budget limits, while so many of our best players reached their big payday moments. He failed at what he was hired to do. Sure, he made some moves like some listed in this article, but he needed to make many more like his few success stories, and he did not. I do think he drafted well and helped set up a situation where Brez can take it a step forward, but that's about it.

It sure seems that way, but we also lost many a game due to our SP'ers being in an awful funk, or our batters going on long slumps. Our defense has consistently helped lose many games, all year long. Unearned runs allowed leaders: (The Sox are 7th worst in runs allowed, but 10th worst in earned runs allowed.) These are the bottom 10 teams in Earned Runs Allowed and how many Unearned runs they allowed: 78 BOS 76 WSH 73 MIA 70 CWS 64 OAK 57 COL 58 LAA 54 TOR 40 TEX 38 AZ MIN is 11th and allowed 47 UERs, BAL is 18th and let up 64 UERS, KCR is 21st with only 42 UERs, NYY is 22nd w 57 UERs allowed,

But if you see most pitchers who are ranked between 60 and 90 as back-end starters, then the argument is over semantics not the true skill level of what a #3 SP'er is in reality, in MLB today. The fact is, there just aren't that many really good SP'ers, but that does not mean a SP'er ranked somewhere around 60-90 is not a big improvement over a true "back-end" SP'er who may be ranked 91-150 or 110-160. Take a look at a top 150 SP'er list based on w hatever your stat or metric of choice is and look at those who fall between 60-90 vs those below and significantly below. IMO, the difference is stark. (Of course, I'd rather package Abreu with others and get a 1-2 slot pitcher, but I still think Abreu is good enough to get several pitchers ranked 60-90, or at worst 40-100 and not only ones ranked 100-150. What makes it difficult to project a possible is that when you look at all the names, you see pitchers who are at a different age, contract cost and or on teams that either don't need a RF'er or who also need pitching more than a RF'er. I get that point, and realize that most teams need better pitching more than better batting. That limits the trade pool, but in terms of something like fWAR, Abreu's WAR is higher than most on any 60-90 list you come up with. Also, many (not me) think everyday players have more value than 1 in 5 game players. The other thing about making a list of the top 150 SP'ers from say 2023 to 2024, it overvalues older pitchers on the downswing, pitchers who are now battling injuries and undervalues younger pitchers on the upswing. The list does not count years of control remaining or contract cost, nor team trade needs, but here is a list based on fWAR from 2023-2024. I had to set the IP level to 150 IP total for 2 seasons to get the sample size to 150, which is pretty telling in a major way, but here it is, if you want to look. Try to get a good idea of what the skill level is for pitchers in the 25-65 range vs those in the 85-155 range. If you still think Abreu is more likely to only get back an 85-155 pitcher vs a 55-95 one, then we are in disagreement. If you don't then the debate is really about what we think a #3 SP'er is. (open the link, if you wish.) Here are some of the more well-known pitchers by slotting with my methodology: (It's not meant to say we should or can trade one for one.) #3: Berrios, Pivetta, Stroman, Taillon, Schmidt, Bello, ERod, Fedde, Jake Irvin, Lorenzen #4: Blackburn, T Walker, L Lynn, Paxton, Quantrill #5: Maeda, Stripling, Martin Perez, Carrasco, Kopech Do you really think Abreu could bring back just a Martin Perez type SP'er and not a Pivetta-Lorenzen type? (I chose those names, because we know how good they are.) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&type=8&month=0&ind=0&startdate=&enddate=&season1=2023&season=2024&qual=150&pagenum=1&pageitems=200

I get the whole anti-SP'er ranking argument, and with so many stats and metrics swirling around, it's hard to get any consensus on which pitchers are top 30, 31-60, 61-90, 91-120 and 121-150. Plus, many have good reason to dispute that dividing them in this way is the way to determine who is a #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. There is no set way to rank starters that even a large minority can agree on. That being said, the point about breaking SP'ers into groups based on their skill levels and or projected skill levels does help a person explain more accurately what type of pitcher a team needs to improve. Surely, we all agree that adding a better pitcher should help more than adding a mediocre pitcher, and that mediocre is better than adding one that is barely good enough or promising enough to even make the average team's rotation. We use the terms 1-2-3-4-5 to try and distinguish more precisely the skill level of a pitcher in question. There will always be debates about what that exact skill level is, like who was better, Stroman or Gio, last winter, but also, were either of them good enough to fit the needs our rotation had, last winter. We sometimes hear our team need rotation depth, and I don't disagree, but IMO, adding mediocre or borderline worthy rotation SP'ers is a losing strategy. It might have its place on a team that limits its budget, tightly, at times, but I don't see a team improving that much by adding a SP'er who is as good or worse than our 5th best SP'er. Can that help? Sure, especially if that guys does well, but the chances of a borderline rotation pitcher doing better that expected is lower than getting a better pitcher than a #5. I've often stated that, in theory, getting a solid #1, or a SP'er better than your #1, actually improves not only the #1 slot, but the 2-3-4 and 5 slots as well, plus it adds the depth piece by making your #5 the #6. I still believe this as a theory, but I fully understand that the fact is, we just replaced our #5 with a #1 and added depth is the bottom line. Of course, it can all be blown up by an injury or unexpected steep decline, or adding a solid #3, who has #1 season can do the opposite, but a GM has to work the odds and try and get the best he can, under his given circumstances. To me, we need an ace, a number one, a really good SP'er, or as I like to frame it, a top 30 SP'er for 2025. You can call it anything you want. You can disagree with any pitcher I or someone else thinks is a top 30, a number 1 or just a "damn good SP'er." All those debates will never end, and rightfully should not, but the basic principle is a sound one: it's better to build up a staff by adding high quality arms than by trying to slightly improve the lower skilled pitchers by replacing them with mediocre ones. I'm not saying doing the latter is a bad thing, but to me, the Sox don't need better mediocre pitchers: we need top quality pitchers, with an emphasis on the "s." as in plural. Once a season gets started, the 1-2-3-4-5 thing gets muddled, but I would rather see Houck start the 2025 season's 3rd game vs another team's #3, than be our opening day starter. We'd improve our odds of winning not just game 1-2 and 3, but also 4 and 5 by moving our 2-3's to games 4 & 5, and so on...

That's fine, and those numbers do have significant meaning. I see a better team and way more reason to be optimistic than I did before this season started. Again, the disclaimer that in no way am I playing into the JH & Co. scam by saying this. We could and should be much better. We can and should be much better, next year with just a limited increases in our winter spending budget and the okay given that a top prospect can be traded. Will that happen? I'm not expecting it, but it's not impossible, either.

It wasn't a prediction, but yes, 4-3 looks nearly impossible, now. Last night's game was brutal, because things looked pretty good, even knowing the state of our pen. It is what it is, and it ain't pretty.

To CWS: M. Mayer, Grissom & Yoshida + $8M x 3 years To BOS: G Crochet & T Banks Sign: Flaherty, Jansen & Sewald ___________________ SP: Crochet, Houck, Flaherty, Bello, Crawford (Criswell, Fitts & Priester) RP: Hendriks, Sewald, Slaten, Whitlock, Wink, Criswell,/Fitts/Priester (Fulmer/Weissert/Guerrero/I Campbell/Kelly/Bernardino) C: Wong & Jansen (Teel) 1B: Casas (Wong/Romy) 2B: Campbell, DHam (Romy/Meidroth) SS: Story, Romy (Sogard/Meidroth/Campbell) 3B: Devers (Romy/Meidroth) LF: Duran (Refsnyder/ EValdez) CF: Rafaela (Duran/Anthony/Campbell) RF: Anthony (Abreu/Refsnyder) DH: Abreu-Refsnyder platoon (Gasper/E Valdez) I think this would even satisfy JH & Co.'s miser ways. Line-Up: 1. L Duran 2. R Campbell 3. L Devers 4. L Anthony 5. R Story 6. L Casas 7. L Abreu-R Refsnyder 8. R Wong- L Teel 9. R Rafaela

You ... errr, I mean your friend.... prefers Grissom to DHam?

Walking Soto on 4 pitches. Kelly & Booser We deserved to lose.

Coffin, meet nail.

His first start wasn't bad, either. 2 GS 10.2 IP 8 Hits 0 ER 4BB 4K .523 OPS Against

Nice to see Story get a couple hits, including the dinger!

I was surprised to look and see it wasn't Skubal pitching.

Yoshi has had two pretty big HRs, this season.

Grissom with a 2 of 3 and 1 BB night, so far. He's up to .786. Makes me wonder, if he gets a call-up when Woo's season ends on Sun the 22nd... Maybe earlier.

When I suggested Mayer to SEA, you acted like they had no need for a middle infielder.

This isn't the Realistic thread, so here it goes... To SEA: 4 yrs of Casas, E R-C and Yoshida (no money, but we pay CWS a lot to take Haniger and Garver off the books for SEA.) To BOS: 2 yrs of Crochet and 5 yrs of Bryce Miller To CWS: M Mayer (Prospect,) DHam and 1 yr of Mitch Haniger ($15.5M) plus 1 yr of Mitch Garver ($12.5M) and $20M from BOS to pay for these two. CWS pay each $3M for the year.

Why not? Maybe for Chris Sale! LOL

Do you see them as #3's? Because, if they are, then you now think he's worth more than many #3's. Remember, I did not include some I felt were much better and would not be traded for Abreu. The contract, age and years of service make other deals a mismatch, but the concept of 5 years of Abreu for cheap for a #3 with 3 years of control and a moderate or cheap cost seems doable, in theory. How about one of these deals: 5 yrs of Abreu for... 3 years of arbs on Nick Lodolo 5 years of S Woods-Richardson (doubt Min even answers the phone, but he's a #3 type.) Same with Bryan Woo w SEA. 5 years of Ronel Blanco 4 years of Ryan Feltner or 4 years of Bailey Falter (more like a #4's) I'm sure there are more.

Fully realizing baseball is not all about stats, it is interesting to see how many highly ranked batters the Sox have, right now. If you set the bar at 300 PAs to get near 9 players per 30 teams and a sample size near 270, here are our rankings: 15. O'Neill .897 (just below Harper, henderson & Betts) Only 13 batters have a better OPS and more PAs than Tyler. 17. Devers .887 (Only 8 batters have more PAs and a higher OPS.) 24. Duran .845 (Nobody has more PAs than Duran, so you know where I'm going.) 31. Refsnyder.833 (His 306 PAs barely qualifies him for my list.) 37. Abreu .818 (Only 28 players have more PAs and a higher OPS.) 66. Yoshida .779 (376 PAs) 67. Wong .778 (49 batters have more PAs & a higher OPS.) That's 7 pretty good bats.

I could see that being the case, and it is a good way to add quality pitching to the big club, over the long haul, but I hope to God, this is not the plan. 1, Houck 2, Giolito 3. Crawford 4. Bello 5. Fitts, Priester, Criswell (Whitlock) If we just add a #3, I'll be steaming pissed. Even if we add a solid #3, a top closer and decent set-up man, I'll be upset. To think we can bring back the same staff with these differences only and be much better is lunacy: Pivetta> Gio Jansen> Hendriks Martin> Fulmer Plus Fitts, Priester and more from Whit & Slaten.