notin

Or Trout...

Is it really hard to find? Lindor is outstanding, but how much better is he over Correa, Seager, Machado (still only 26!!), Baez, Story, Turner , Bogaerts, Grigorius or Simmons? Even if he is the best, the drop off among the top 10 shortstops might not be so significant...

I'm still in Magoo Mode. Where is Pedroia (who makes $15mill mext year) on this list?

King claimed he did not think a pitcher should be eligible for the award despite the rules for MVP voting explicitly stating pitchers are eligible. That interpretation of the rules came about rather suddenly, as he had voted for David Wells (then with the Yankees) the previous season. Total Boston bias...

1. $10.5mill to players not on the 40-man roster? Do they now count against the luxury tax? Castillo makes more than that amount on his own. 2. I'd be surprised if Smith got arnitration at all. Thornburg is an interesting case that I could see go eiither way. But if set up man is on the wish list, he might be a cheaper alternative than free agency. 3. On the "major holes" list, really, it's just closer and some possible bench stuff, but most of those holes might be with the team already. Also, as much as I don't like it, if the Sox have to move a player making some cash, Bradley is the most likely candidate...

I wouldn't give the leader the MVP award outright, just like in the pre-sabermetric days, I wouldn't give the award outright to the home run leader or the RBI leader. But using WAR, you can get a list of the best 3 or 4 or 5 candidates and work from there...

Without doing all the math, which I will leav for moonslav, that's my basic line of thinking, too. I don't think Kimbrel needs to go because of his performance. I'll even overlook his mediocre second half. But going forward, I think he is simply going to be too big of a strain on a large but limited budget. And given the years he is likely to want, might not be as reliable as he has been for the duration...

That will be the big debate on this board - Wright or Johnson for fifth starter. As if they both won't start games...

One can only hope his nickname was Rick.. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=lessma001ric

Possible, but some of that "correction" also might have been in anticipation of this particular market with the possiblities if Harper, Machado, Kershaw, Donaldson, etc all available. The Yankees and Dodgers basically sat out last off-season's free agency i an attempt to reset the luxury tax penalties...

Well, that depends what has been clinched. The Cubs and Brewers are probably both still pretty motivated. And I would suspect some of the most motivated players are the AAA call ups who want to put on a show so they can be considered options for jobs next year that don't involve bus rides...

And some of them actually simply retire before they die. You know, for the less squeamish and more sensitive out there...

And they want to reset their value so they can get the largest and longest deal thy can find. People take new positions every day for financial and job security reasons. MLB players are no different in this regard...

We do know he has an agent, and his agent will want Kimbrel paid accordingly. That was what he was hired for in the first place, And given the amount of money Wade Davis received and the eyars Chapman and Jansen received, a 5 year/$100mill contract is not a ridiculous prediction. In fact, both numbers might be light. Any notion that Kimbrel - the active career save leader and active career fWAR leader - will take less to stay in Boston is a fan's pipe dream. It isn't going to happen. If I know where Kimbrel's career ranks in MLB history, certainly Kimbrel and his agent are aware as well. And while Kimbrel might - and probably will - say he'd like to finish his career in Boston, that doesn't mean he wants fewer years or less money from the Sox; that means he wants Boston to step up and meet his demands...

And I've been saying since BDC. I'd rather have a "high leverage specialist" than a ninth inning specialist. As for the non-save situations, don't forget that the only difference between a hold and a save is if the game ends. Pitchers are credited with blown saves in the 7th and 8th innings every day, so Kimbrel's stats in non-save situations are irrelevant if he is in "hold situations", as those are also save situations...

I'd say they are being wise an cautious. No point throwing out your elbow at the end of September when October is so close...

And equally capable of winning thr Golden Shlub...

Sale and Barnes have both had extended DL absences and presumably a bit of rust. That doesn't mean both will return to form in the post-season, but certainly does mean they needed to get some work in to get back into game form. As these games are meaningless to the Sox, I don't put any weight in their performances...

While fixing his footwork will certainly improve his fielding, will it make him better than all the other 3B in the AL, including Matt Chapman, Kyle Seager and Jose Ramirez?

But even with 1/2 of the fans being above averge with knowledge of the game, there is still a lop-sided bias in our viewing tendencies. Watching Betts play 162 times and watching Trout play 6 times doesn't give the objectivity to determine who was the beter player. Having a reasonable objective stat like WAR does remove a very big chunk of our biases. And certainly voter biases exist too. Ask Pedro Martinez. If WAR was as common in 1999 as it is today, would Pudge Rodriguez (6.8 fWAR) still have won the award over Pedro (11.6 fWAR)?

Exactly. He didn't hire an agent to take a discount to stay in Boston...

$100 mill is too much, but my philoshophy is typically I'm OK with the high salary if we can cut back on the years. If the Sox re-signed Kimbrel for 3 years / $65mill, I'd greatly prefer that contract to 5 years / $100mill. But as this is Kimbrel's big chance, I have to think maximizing the years is important to him...

I would say the closer role is overrated because it has become a ninth inning specialist. It's nothing about Kimbrel, who is a terrific pitcher. But the way this role has evolved has made it into an overpriced specialisy. (It is odd how baseball economics have evolved from using specialty players in order to save money into watching them get overpaid for their specialization.) The game is simply not on the line in every ninth inning. Plenty of times, far more critical situaions happen earlier that that. We've all seen too many games when other bullpen pitchers come in to face the 4-5-6 hitters with men on base in a close game in the eighth inning only to see the closer than get rolled out in the ninth to face the 7-8-9 hitters. To me, this is a waste of having a pitcher like Kimbrel. Kimbrel pitched 61 IP this year, but 53.1 of them were in the ninth inning. I'm not going to go through every game log, but if there is an even distribution, then roughly 44% of those games, he started the inning off with a hitter batting 6 through 9. These are the easier outs in every lineup. If closers were still used like they were back in the days og Gossage, Sutter and Fingers, that would be different. Those guys were not ninth inning specialists, and often pitched 2 or 3 innings in many appearances. They rarely if ever had games where they faced the bottom of the order and no one else. Also, as most managers manage towards to save, the closer is used for about any lead of three runs or less. Using your best reliever with a one run lead certainly seems wise. But with a 3-run lead? Sometimes that is overkill, espeially for those 3-run leads against the bottom of the order. I really see no point in saving the best reliever to face the 7-8-9 hitters with the task of getting 3 outs before giving up 3 runs. I'd rather see Kimbrel (or any closer) used when the game is actually on the line. This does mean coming in with men on base in the seventh or eigthth innings. While you might not like the idea of using Kelly in the ninth, why do you find the idea of Kelly facing the heart of the order with men on base in the eighth inning acceptable? Or Hembree or Barnes? The problem with using the closer when the game is actually on the line is many pitchers and their agents on't like it. Saves have become a bargaining tool for agents and being a closer does mean more years and money when negotiation time comes. Remember when the Andrew Miller contract ($8mill per for a middle reliever) sent shock waves through the industry? That was closer money at the time. While Miller was typically facing those tough pre-ninth situations, most teams did not want to see non-closing relievers start to get paid like closers. And after that deal, we alsos saw a severe rise in what closers were paid, despite not always handling to toughest situations. The role of closer as it is used today is certainly overrated. I'd rather have a pitcher who can put out the tough fires than an overpaid ninth inning specialist. But it is very tough to find an Andrew Miller type who wants to take on that role, and the reason always boils down to financial ones. And if I asked you hypothetically, how much worse would the Sox be if, say, Kelly was closing, what would you answer? Certainly the Sox wouldn't still be fighting with the Yankees for the division. Maybe home field would still be in doubt. Maybe. I think that was the original point. However many games Kelly would have cost the Sox by being a ninth inning specialist, that number is probably less than the number he did cost the Sox by pitching in crucial situations in the seventh and eighth innings. I like the idea of having a pitcher as good as Kimbrel in the bullpen, but if he is only going to pitch the ninth inning regardless of the situation, it is overkill. Because saving your best reliever to protect a 3 run lead for one inning against the 7-8-9 hitters is not a good way to use him...

Well I’m anti-long term contract in many cases and will blatantly tell you the role of closer is overvalued in general. But I still like Kimbrel...

deGrom has been better. Ditto Aaron Nola. But I do think Freeland might have accomplished a franchise first...