notin

$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...

Who does?

Sale? Yes. I think he’s a time bomb. But Betts is a special player with a level of talent you rarely see. He’s become the player Bryce Harper was supposed to be...

I’ve heard a lot of names thrown around in the NL MVP race. But I haven’t heard anyone mention Christian Yelich, who might end up actually taking the award. And for all the props Jake deGrom gets as shoe-in for Cy Young, serious recognition needs to go to Kyle Freeland. Has any Rockies pitcher ever had a sub-3.00 ERA in 200 IP?

Fortnite Fever

Every once in a while, the Baltimore Orioles try to remind people they are still an actual Major League Baseball team. And then it passes...

The Sox could try and trade one year of Bogaerts and see what it’s worth to the loser of the Manny Machado Sweepstakes. Iglesias and Freddy Galvis should both be decent FA replacements who don’t kill the budget, play excellent defense and are both on the good side of 30 (although I hope that’s less relevant and either deal is fairly short). Iglesias might be the better hitter but Galvis is typically healthier and shows up for work with more regularity...

Well, some of them are going to have to. You can't afford to keep all the highest paid players without having some dirt cheap minimum wage players to offset them...

I'm sure it is. But did that article say it was the only criterion among those who use it? There was a time when RBIs were a stat MVP voters considered (and some probably still do). But no one ever advocated just giving the MVP to the RBI leader ever year...

Apparently my "walk list" would be way mopre controversial: 1. Porcello 2. Kimbrel 3. Sale 4. Bradley 5. Martinez 6. Bogaerts 7. Betts I doubt anyone else is as willing to let Sale walk as I am. But I think he might be another Price for the Sox - cost roughly $30mill and be a shell of his former self, likely due to his potential for injuries...

With our s***** farm system? It might be Bogaerts. Whose the best CF over the age of 19 in the Sox farm system? CJ Chatham might be nothing more than a utility infielder when his day comes, but he is closer to MLB than any of our center field prospects (unless you like Rusney Castillo, which DD doesn't)...

Maybe that is because he figures JBJ to be significantly cheaper than Bogaerts? Both are Boras clients. Both will try the market and go for the best deal possible. They didn't hire Boras to get any other advice...

I think everyone would let Porcello walk, including Dombrowski. Unless somehow he commands a far lesser deal than the one he already received. JD is another player the Sox need to keep. He would be great to keep, and hopefully he makes it a non-factor by not opting out. But his agent will certainly be giving him different advice if he keeps this up. But as he is already on the books for $90mill over the next 4 years, the raise to keep him shouldn't be too substantial. I assume Dombrowski and the accoutning team figure him in for future plans. I get why you put Bradley over Bogaerts, as Bradley is likely in a different tax bracket. But I still think Bogaerts has his best years ahead of him. I would put both of them behind Sale (like you did) if I had faith in Sale staying healthy. His shoulder troubles this year, his past elbow issues (the White Sox briefly moved him to closer one season due to arm trouble), and that herky-jerky delivery that makes Dr. James Andrews eyes light up every time he sees it all make me very suspicious of his long term durability. Betts is a no-brainer at the top of the list. Bogaerts is second. And then Martinez, and if he is still affordable, Bradley. (Bogaerts, Bradley and Martinez are all Boras clients, which might influence the decision-making process for DD.) That does leave a gaping hole in the pitching staff, as I think there are reasons to let all 3 go when the time comes. DD better start getting young arms in the system and stop trading for relievers who need TJ the next day.

I look at it this way. By the end of the 2020 season, the following key players will all have reached free agency: Kimbrel Bogaerts Sale Porcello Betts Martinez (if he opts out) Bradley Given that David Price isn't going anywhere and every one of these players except maybe Bradley is likely to command over $20mill per season, some in great excess of that amount, the Sox are not likely to be able to keep them all. And while they do spend a lot of money, they are probaby not going to tie up over $100mill in 4 players (counting Price), leaving maybe another $100mill for the other 21 roster spots. If they do spend heavy and keep too many of these players, it will be difficult to impossible to keep Benintendi and/or Devers, assuming Devers shows he is worth keeping. We may not know their limit, but they absolutely do have one. Maybe they can retain 2 of those players and hope Martinez doesn't opt out. If that is the case, what two would you keep?

Not wanting to have him back through his early 30s as the highest paid closer in MLB history is not the same as not liking him. It just means the Sox have other players I would prefer they retained instead. I think Chris Sale, if he can stay healthy, is on the fast track to Cooperstown and will be far more difficult to replace than Kimbrel, but I think the Sox would be smart to let him go when his contract (and all options) finally expires, too. Of course, a big part of that is my doubts he can stay healthy...

No one said that. But if you are going to base everything on one stat, that's a good one to pick. And it might even be better than the voting process. It certainly would not have lead to a few of the more questionable MVP choices, like Justin Morneau in 2006. And yet it would not have prevented what I thought was the most questionable MVP of all, Josh Hamilton in 2010...

I can't believe they didn't coast to 100 in that crappy division. I think part of it for them is they clinched first and have been coasting and playing to not get hurt longer than any other team...

They do. And there are voters who take WAR into account, using whichever version they prefer. Maybe some even use it as their sole criterion. But the BBWAA also has some voting members who don't like advanced metrics, and have other criteria when they vote for the award...

The problem with simply deciding Hembree and Kelly have been too ineffective lately (which they have) and therefore should be dropped from the post-season roster still eaves the question - for who? and are all these sample sizes just too small to be representative? It's safe to assume Kimbrel, Barnes, Brasier and ERod are going to the post-season bullpen. Wright probably is, too. That leaves a maximum of three spots from Kelly, Hembree, Workman, Velasquez, Poyner, Johnson, Scott, Thornburg, Cuevas and Pomeranz. Four if they decide not to take ERod. Right off the bat, I would say Thornburg and Pomeranz have struggled to stay healthy and can be left off from further consideration, leaving 8 pitchers for 3 or 4 spots. Of these pitchers, only Poyner and Cuevas have thrown more than 7IP this month. Should the Sox leave Kelly and Hembree off the post-season roster because Cuevas looked better in the 11 IP he has thrown, half of which came in one outing? A mere 7IP ago, Kelly had an ungodly August with a 1.42 ERA/1.90 FIP. Is that no longer relevant because of those seven innings since? (Overall, Kelly has had better second half than Barnes has had. Is Barnes on he bubble?) I really don't think the Sox should play "hot hand" with these small sample sizes and hope it continues for another month. At some point, they are going to need to bring some of the pitchers that got them where they are in the first place...

Not only the Yankees having 100 wins and finishing a distant second, but Tampa could win more games than AL Central champion Cleveland and no one has even mentioned the Rays as a post-season contender all year, and with good reason...

Using fWAR, he is the 7th best Oakland player, behind Chapman, Lowrie, Treinen, Semien, Olson, and Piscotty...

Well we can either discuss the future or the post-season roster. There isn't much else going on right now...