notin

I thought that was fairly obvious. Is it escaping some people?

And do you know what they call people who ignore warnings of pending cliffs? I’m not sure, either. But I think “red stuff smeared on a bunch of rocks,” while cumbersome, is fairly accurate...

It's not a weak argument. It's a stupid argument. The Guardians have 3 of the 6 highest fWAR players and the 4 highest fWAR pitchers in the AL Central. And while the Guardians are good, the rest of that division is flat out awful. Whit Merrifield and Eduardo Escobar are the only two non-Cleveland position players from AL Central teams in the top 20 by fWAR of the American League. Nick Castellanos is the other before the next Cleveland player (Brantley). In the top 37 players by WAR in the American League, Cleveland has as many (and better) players as the other four teams in the division combined. And that's not evne getting into the pitching, which they beyond dominate. Not only do the Guardians walk away with that division even without Ramirez, they walk away without Lindor as well. And possibly Kluber, too...

It's much more likely all 4 are left off the roster than Cuevas being placed on it. If Cora goes with an 8-man bullpen, Kimbrel, Brasier, Wright, Kelly, Workman, Velasquez, ERod, and Barnes is a likely set. Johnson and/or Poyner might eliminate someone from that list. Cuevas is a few injuries away from entering the conversation...

You might say that you don't look ahead and try to gauge where the market will be, but that is Dombrowski's job....

Better to give away those games in September than in October...

The entire point is it was one game from Cuevas, and against a team not really playing for anything. Did you watch his other games this year? He was pretty weak all year in the other games we all watched. Hembree has been pretty bad for a couple months, but also gave the Sox 3 very good months before that. But really, before last night, what has Cuevas done? And you people who watch the games always assume those of us who know the stats don't watch. Why is that? All I did was ask you what was it about Cuevas you liked? So far, the answer is, he had one good outing. Is that correct?

1. Is Kimbreal really the best closer in the league? He's certainly up there, but Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Edwin Diaz are, too. 2. How much longer will he be an elite closer? He certainly has not been one since the All Star break. Re-signing Kimbrel will probably work out in 2019 and maybe 2020. But if he is signed until 2022 or 2023 or later, he absolutely will be a liability at some point. And not a cheap one. Reportedly he will become the mopst expensive closer in MLB history, and if the early rumors are true, by a lot. This will definitely hamper the Sox ability to retain as many of the Killer B's as possible, and if you think it is going to be tough to replace Kimbrel, how tough do you think it will be to replace Betts or Benintendi or Bogaerts? Which of those three would you give up to keep Kimbrel? It is very likely to come down to at least one of them. In fact, what if it comes down to the non-Boras clients, Betts and Benintendi? Would you rather keep Kimbrel and let one of them walk? Keeping Kimbrel might help the Sox ability to hold leads, but if they lose the Killer B's, there might be a time when getting those leads to protect is a bigger problem. This team has found closers before and will again. No need to have the most expensive one because of what he used to be...

Based on what? He's thrown 16 innings this year and before last night, was not particularly effective in nearly all of them. Going into last night's game, he had thrown 11 innings with an ERA of 5.56 and a WHIP of 1.68. and of those 11, only one was a 1-2-3 inning. He's light years behind Hembree and Thornburg and it's debatable if he is even more effective than Pomeranz right now...

So... the one outing sample size?

Actually it was Johnny Damon with 20, a distant third from the 41 Ortiz hit. Millar and Varitek had 18 apiece and Bellhorn had 17...

If I was his agent and the Sox came to me with that deal (sans the comical additions), my advice would be. "Thanks but no thanks. We can do better." Besides ungodly sums of money, most players want years of control. Giving him multiple opportunities to get those years as he ages and they become less likely isn't the most appealing compromise. Some crazy GM will absolutely meet the 5 year $100mill guesstimate. Might even be Theo Epstein. If you think about it, that might be the perfect match. Team needs a closer. They have plenty of room left before the luxury tax. And they have already locked up several of their young star players. (They would love to lock up Kris Bryant, but that is not going to happen on Boras' watch.) And they will very likely be jettisoning another young talented player in Addison Russell this off-season, which might even bring back some cost-control. The Cardinals, Nationals, Angels, Phillies and Astros are also all potential landing spots for Kimbrel. He isn't taking some cheap deal to stay in Boston. Not with the attention he will be getting...

It depends what you mean by "price himself out." Sure the Sox will be able to afford him. But at some point he is going to stop being as effective. And at some point, retaining Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley and eventually Benintendi has to be a priority...

A fun trivia question (without looking it up) is - who as third on that team in home runs?

The entire point is that Kimbrel is going to price himself out. You can’t argue he’s the best on one hand and that he won’t insist on being paid as the best on the other. He did hire an agent for a reason...

And the next series as well. It’s a big deal...

It is amazing how many people want Kelly off the playoff roster in favor of Lin or Swihart or Wright or Workman or Velasquez. Kelly is going, folks. Book it.. Moreland is too...

Unless there is an injury, which is a legitimate concern with both Nunez and Devers this year...

No. Not for Holt. Sometimes he only triples...

Not to mention a four-time All Star Gold Glove (in 1979) shortstop in Rick Burleson who might be one of the most under appreciated Sox players in the past half century...

Oh they threw a lot. Complete games were not rarities. But in 1978 Bob Stanley threw 120 IP from the bullpen (and 21 more in 3 starts). How many relievers top 100 IP from the pen today? Overworking relievers was commonplace. The Dodgers once used reliever Mike Marshall in 106 games AND FOR 208 IP!!! And, despite it being a still-standing record, no one thought it was a big deal. For some perspective, Eddie Guardado was called “Everyday Eddie”, but maxed out at 83 appearances (for 73.2 largely ineffective innings)...

Many sportswriters overtly said Tony LaRussa was taking a huge risk by converting an aging starter to the closer role. But I think we both agree Dennis Eckersley worked out ok. Very few minor league closers assume that same role in the majors. So therefore every closer was a risk at some point in his career. I’m ok with taking one. And by using an actual talented pitcher (like Richards or Harvey), that risk is severely mitigated. Of course it is likely neither Richards nor (especially) Harvey is open to the idea...

The way Holt has been off the bench, keeping him for a key pinch hitting role is not a bad idea...,

What would you say was the best Sox team? If not this one, I go with the 1978 team that had four Hall of Famers (Yaz, Rice, Fisk, Eckersley) and a couple other Hall-worthy players (Tiant, Evans)...

Stanley averaged over 2IP per relief appearance, but that wasn’t the fault of a clueless manager. That was how bullpens we’re used back then. No one had all these specialized bullpen roles until the late 1980’s. Teams frequently used their best reliever as often as they needed him as opposed to making him solely a ninth inning specialist. And it was very common for a reliever to face the same hitters twice in the same game, something I would bet Papelbon never did as a reliever in Boston. The 1978 Red Sox used a four man bullpen (Stanley, Dick Drago, Bill Campbell, and Tom Burgmeier) for the majority of the season, meaning they had to rely heavily on the four pitchers they had. Can you imagine a team doing that today? It was actually common in the 70’s...