notin

Especially since pitchers and catchers report in only 45 days...

I'm talking about addressing even small needs like minor league depth for starting pitching or relievers. Or a bench bat. Or a stopgap 2B. Or any other need this team might have. Twelve weeks and so far he has gotten us Esteban Quiroz and Mike Olt. I get why he hasn't brought JD Martinez or Jake Arrieta or whoever is on his radar. But I don't get why in 12 weeks has has only gotten Esteban Quiroz and Mike Olt. Especially since there is a really good chance both of them are completely worthless...

Really? So three people looking at the same information cannot agree about it and that surprises you? Do you not own a television or follow politics at all? Or at any point in the last half century? I know this lack of concrete answers i a fun way to try and disprove fielding metrics over your own eyes. Many have. Yet these same people would look at the Chris Archer argument, even without the fWAR, and come to different conclusions about his status as an ace. When you have this many stats, there is a lot of interpretation sometimes. Coming up with defensive metrics for fielding has been among the toughet tasks, The eye test is actually almost worthlss when done by you or me. Too often it turns into the Reputation TEst (which is probably more accurate but completely independant of our input), or worse the "I Saw That Guy Make An Error Once" Test. And errors are not much of a metric either. They're really just some guy's opinion. The only reason you don't find them as questionable is that games only have one official scorer. I've seen hundreds of errors I would not have called and hundred more hits I thought deserved to be errors. (And probably a few hundred more attributed to the wrong player.) But most people think these are all obvious and the guidelines are accurate. They don't even follow the rule book...

He is aware he's allowed to make other deals for other needs while waiting, right?

And while I get the need for the bat and the long-lasting staring contest with Boras, maybe he could divert a little of that focus into addressing some of the other needs on this team. The season ended 12 weeks ago and so far the biggest addition has been Esteban Quiroz. Or has it been Mike Olt? That debate more than proves my point. ..

Angelos has said he won't trade Machado to anyone who will flip him to the Yankees. So either he hates them so much he certainly won't trade, or he wants their prospects for himself. If it's the latter, not so good. Unless he insists upon Torres plus, in which case it won't matter. But as it has been said before, he is a weird and tempermental guy. I think he holds Machado until at least July.

The interest in Machado is also possibly a negotiating tactic against Boras and Martinez. It won't work, but then neither does Boras' oft-employed and ineffective "Mystery Team" tactic...

How much is one year of Machado actually worth? Is he worth 3 years of Bradley? Four years of ERod? Six years of Chavis? In what figures to be a lost season in Baltimore, while none of those deals would ever happen, in which ones do the Orioles actually lose out?

If he gets dealt at the deadline, then absolutely wait on him, as there will be no Qualifying Offer attached...

Samardzija does seem like a reach, but BRadley is a good pickup for them. At least Fangraphs, who ranked him #46 in trade value, would agree. As for Hanley, probably only if the Sox took back Hunter Pence. Pence is still a decent outfielder, but his hitting has dropped precipitously. Steamer projects him at 1.4 fWAR next season and Hanley at 1.0 fWAR. Regardless, if Pence's only value is defense, he is an unlikely target for the Sox crowded outfield. Especially since any trade of Bradley is likely precipitated by signing JD Martinez. But if the Sox do sign Martinez, Bradley for Belt (plus?) does become a possibility. And if it happens, the Sox might release Hanley...

Today's crazy trade proposal that will never happen. Hanley Ramirez (1yr / $22mill plus option) and Jackie Bradley (3 arb years) for Jeff Samardzija (3 yrs $54mill) and Brandon Belt (4 yrs $64mill) Samardzija is actually a pretty good pitcher victimized by a horrific defense last year. He still ranked top 15 in FIP and xFIP (ok he was 16th in xFIP) in all of MLB. His value of 3.8 fWAR is impressive. While he had an ERA over 4.40 in the NL, if he had Boston's defense behind him, it would have been closer to 3.90 (assuming a lot of distributive normalcy). Of course that defense would take a bit of a hit without Bradley. Still, Samradzija might have been one of the most underrated pitchers last year. (Safe bet the Giants are somewhat aware of this.) Belt's big problem to me is his history of concussions. If that can be mitigated by DHing him, it could work out quite well. While he has never hit more than 18HRs in a season, bear in mind he is completely surpressed by his home park. 64 of his 98 career HRs were hit elsewhere in only 20 more PAs. The straight up Belt/Bradley proposals have been thrown around before. If Belt can DH, it might not be so bad. That does mean the Sox have to drop Hanley off the roster, which is certainly something Dombrowski is not hesitant to do, judging by history. The return could be sweetened a little to offset the health concerns with a bullpen arm (possibly a lefty?) or a 2B or a prospect, assuming the Giants have one. That still leaves a void in the rotation and the bullpen. SF doesn't have much else there, leaving free agency as an option. One name that might b worth a gamble is Chris Tillman. Bradley would be a terrific pickup for the defensively weak Giants. Hanley might not be so much on their minds, although unloading $118mill in salary might make taking back his $22mill a bit more palatable.

Depends on how it is done. Spending heavily on one arm who is going to pitch only 60-70 IP of the 500-600IP that the bullpen will handle is certainly a bad way to go. That's really no different that having one hitter in the lineup and assuming he will handle all the offense...

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...