notin

MLB Network was talking about this today. Basically the point was how many winning teams used multiple closers over the course of the season. An expensive lockdown closer, as I have been saying for years, is really a waste of resources and teams are better off sharing the wealth to get multiple quality arms in the bullpen. The Rockies have spent over $100mill on their bullpen this off-season alone, but most teams with an expensive closer don't spend so much. Teams like the Royals and Cardinals are prime examples of how a complete bullpen is better. The 2011 Cardinals used at least 5 different closers and didn't even have a great rotation. (Wainwright missed the entire season and a 36yo Chris Carpenter lead their staff with a decent 11-9 3.45 season, but that's hardly ace caliber stuff. The Royals rotation was lead by Edinson Volquez when they won a WS title.) I think more pitchers are capable of handling the closer role than many realize, but typically the unestablished guys get virtually no leeway with the role. I see guys removed from the closer role after 1 or 2 bad outings.

It's a deal I would consider, but we all know Dombrowski won't. He wouldn't deal Benintendi for Sale, so he certainly won't trade him for Archer. And the Rays are extremely unlikely to take Bradley or Bogaerts for Archer. So extra pitching needs to come from somewhere else. ...

That might happen, but certainly/hopefully not because they traded for him. And while I am not a big fan of Dombrowski's short term MO, if he does make a deal for Machado for one season, only to watch him walk afterwards (or really, even if he pays him what he wants), I will start thinking of our President of Ops and acting GM as incompetent...

It turns out Moreland, Judge and Stanton have a side hustle as Prohibition Era bootleggers...

But the Sox were under the limit last year. You're thinking of the Yankees who were over...

Devers might be just the starting point. I wouldn't have an issue trading Devers (plus ?) for Machado, but I definitely have one trading Devers for ONE YEAR of Machado. Not sure how many years makes me comfortable. But definitely not one...

FanGraphs uses Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) as the baseline. It does count infield popups as strikeouts, as they are practically automatic outs. Baseball-Reference uses a pitcher’s runs allowed and then adjusts that value based on the overall quality of their defense that year. So a pitcher can do worse in bWAR than fWAR on a team that plays poor defense, especially a pitcher with excellent K% and K/BB numbers. but with an elevated HR rate (which leads to more runs allowed). So yes ARcher could be a lot worse in bWAR than fWAR. I prefer fWAR as it is based on three outcomes the pitcher can control

The eye test isn't subjective?

Possible. And likely, assuming Darvish or the declining Arrieta are still unsigned. Also possible there is an "outside the box" solution we have not thought of. Like signing Wade Davis and trading Kimbrel. The big issue is obvious. Teams interested in Kimbrel are clearly trying to win immediately and therefore less likely to give up the pitcher or hitter the Sox want, so it could wind up as a complicated three team scenario. Or the Sox could sign Davis and just have a monster bullpen. While Davis undoubtedly wants a closing job, if he was paid closer money, he might not mind doing set up work for one season and assuming the closer role after Kimbrel leaves via free agency. In some respects, this is a lot smarter than signing a starter. Closers and relievers typically hold their value longer than starters as pitchers enter their 30s...

Any player the Sox can deal Hanley Ramirez for you probably don't want to see on the Sox...

Absolutely. Archer is an ace and one of the best starting pitchers in MLB. If the Sox could get him for Benintendi, they'd be foolish not to. Especially if they actually sign Martinez. Of course Tampa doesn't do that deal straight up. It really comes down to how many ancillary pieces are involved. And it might be premature to label Benintendi as great. Even if he does become great, the Sox window to win closes significantly in two years, which may not time with Benintendi's greatness. Of course, even if he does become great, it guarantees nothing. Ted Williams was great. Carl Yastrzemski was great. Jim Rice was great. Those three Hall of Famers manned left field for over half a century. And also combined for how many World Series titles?

Also completely at the hands of Red Sox hitters, who have put together one of the best offenses in the AL for most of his career. Also the one team he would never face again...

How is trading for 4 years of Chris Archer supposed to compare to trading for 3 months of Larry Anderson? The Bagwell trade was 27 years ago. Clearly not every prospect or young player trade works out so badly...

So basically if Benintendi doesn't pan out, the Sox get the better end of the deal. And if he does pan out, the Sox get Archer and a little more financial flexibility. Sounds like a no-brainer to me...

There is a very short list of players I would trade Benintendi for, but Archer is most definitely on it. The real question is, is Chavis enough ancillary trade bait to convince Tampa top make the deal.

Apparently including a cop at one time...

C: Vazquez 1b: Moreland (and maybe Swihart) 2b: Hernandez 3b: Devers SS: Bogaerts LF: Martinez CF: Bradley RF: Betts DH: Ramirez SP: Sale, Price, Archer, Porcello, Pomeranz RP: Kimbrel, Smith, Barnes, Kelly, Hembree, Johnson, Scott Bench: Leon, Marrero, Holt. Whats not to like? Personally I'd try to deal Holt for a fourth OF capable of playing all 3 positions. I might consider a better 2b as well....

The Rays are one of the teams where Bradley represents a step down defensively. Would you trade Benintendi and Chavis for Archer? For Archer and his contract, if you're comfortable giving it up, it probably isn't enough. Archer ranks 16 on fangraphs 2018 trade value list. Benintendi is #26. Bradley is #45th.

Given Archer's extremely friendly contract, I would imagine the bidding starts with Benintendi instead of Bradley. ..

Its never been an exclusive"don't swing until you have two strikes" little league approach

Don't forget about Arrieta. And Bradley alone should be enough for the oft-injured but mega-talented Salazar...

Bestill my throbbing nipples...

Mike Greenwell and I would dispute this...

Isn't that stat predicated on the first pitch always leading to an 0-1 count? How was he at 1-0?

As the Sox were sixth in the AL in runs scored while being absolutely abysmal at hitting home runs, they shouldn't try to change that aspect of their offensive approach. The easiest fix is to add a bat that can provide more home runs. They were pathetic at home runs. Even if they hit 10% more home runs, they would still have been last in the AL. Yet they weren't even close to being the lowest scoring team, because they put people on base. They were sixth in the AL at scoring at 5th in OBP while being 15th in home runs. And the idea appears to be to cut into the OBP, which was carried by their BB% (5th) as opposed to their batting average (9th). And there are numerous other ancillary effects, such as giving our pitchers longer rests while the opposing pitchers work harder. Making this team more aggressive is not a good idea. It's the one thing that worked and it's what Cora wants to fix...