Because 150+ innings from a starter with a 4.17 ERA is more valuable than a multi-inning power reliever (70-80 innings?) with a 2.65 ERA. Houck posted his highest fWAR in 2021 (2.3) and 2023 (1.2). The thing those two seasons have in common is he started in 34 of his 39 appearances in those two seasons. In 2022, he relieved far more than he started (0.7 WAR).
And yet we have seen a role where he is much better.
They've been trying to turn them into good starters for 2 or 3 years already and they have been ineffective or hurt or both. There is not giving up, and then there is madness.
He also said the Sox (and the rest of MLB) were unimpressed by Montgomery's stuff.
Again, I'll point out that nearly every pitcher tends to be better as a reliever than a starter, so I don't find it to be a persuasive argument that Whitlock's 130 relief innings are more instructive than the 90 innings thrown as a starter.
Because I am conceited. And...for Monty specifically I think it points in that direction, although not with everyone we have been "in on"
So Whitlock is in "the best shape of his life?" Sounds like the usual offseason pablum to me. But we'll see since they are insisting on making him a starter come hell or high water.
2 runs better per 9 is huge difference.
Like I said, under the old pitching group I'd agree with you. But have you been watching Whitlock this month? He looks like a different guy out there, truly.
I laughed. Not sure if intentional, or how the hell we didn't call him that on bad days back in the day.
1) developing pitching takes time. Breslow and Bailey have both been employed here for less than 6 months. Both have successful track records of doing it for their last teams. The trades for Fitts, Sandlin, Campbell, Slaten, Weissert and signing of Hendricks, Fullmer, and Giolito in a short time show that they are building it.
If you pitch 150+ innings in a single season. If you can't get there and pitch 120 over a season you are not only below average in your starts but you are killing the bullpen.
Oh sure, and Red Sox Stats noted some of the same things. But: it's spring training. I'm old and have heard this type of hype going back a long, long time. Jeff Sellers was gonna be great too, etc.
Right. If we're going to use the CBT to justify or criticize ownership it does seem important to understand how it works.
You believe that trading Chris Sale and saving 8mm AAV followed by signing Giolito to 19mm AAV qualifies as a large chunk of money?
No quibbles with any of this though I would expect that if Pivetta is pitching well and it looks sustainable (i.e. the new cutter/sweeper is legit or the overall command has visibly improved) the FO will approach him about an extension. This team is so woefully short on MLB-caliber pitching that locking in 150+ average to above-average innings at reasonable money is definitely worth exploring, especially if Whitlock and/or Houck both struggle. Right now the 2025 rotation is Bello, Crawford and nothing else, and after the way this offseason played out, I don't expect free agency to be an avenue to get help.
Oh they should but I think we have seen enough to know they won't.
If nothing else it would be really funny if after not pursuing Snell they turn around and give a big deal to the right-handed worse version of Snell
1. Of course developing pitching takes time--the Sox literally haven't developed a good starting pitcher in what, 10 years now (aside from Bello). You need starting pitching in order to win, right? The Sox can't pause season(s) because they need to develop starters. Saying developing starting pitching is hard and not getting starting pitching through the other two channels (free agency and trades) is just excuse making. I know it's hard. The Red Sox know it's hard. The Yankees know it's hard. Every team in the league knows it's hard.
A couple of relevant details. Any team that is over the initial luxury tax threshold and signs a free agent who turned down a a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool while a team that is not over the luxury tax would only lose $500,000. In addition, a team over the initial luxury tax threshold who loses a player from their roster who turned down a qualifying offer has their compensation pick dropped to the 4th round.
Fully fungible like Chase Anderson. And Brennan Bernardino. And Cooper Criswell. And Romy Gonzalez. And David Hamilton. And Tyler Heineman. And Joe Jacques. And Zack Kelly. And Rob Refsnyder. And Brandon Walter.
Once again, we are on the same page.
I realize you said “right now” in your post, but I don’t think Boston has changed much in 17 years. That’s when J.D. Drew, an avid hunter and devout Christian from Valdosta, Ga., chose to sign with the Sox. He’s a guy who specifically didn’t want to play in Philly and seemingly doesn’t love being on camera, but he came to Boston.
They should definitely try with Kutter, Grissom, and Casas. I don't think anyone else would be worth it.
Yeah like a solid third of this roster is what could be charitably described as "Pirates adjacent" (if not the end product). They've struck out badly the last ~5 years in terms of finding roster depth that's either viable long-term or has some kind of ceiling (or both)
I think a lot of this is true but at the same time, these guys are spending half the season on the road anyway, and they can choose to live wherever they want in the offseason (and spend all spring in Florida). I don't buy that Boston's particular living situation issues are pushing dudes away aside from the most MAGA-pilled doofuses. But all that being said, it's incumbent on ownership to understand the hurdles they face in convincing players to choose Boston over New York or Los Angeles or anywhere else, and that means A) opening the wallet and B) building the best roster possible to appeal to what 95% of players care about first and foremost: winning. No one's signing with a bad team just because they're in a cool city or are located close to good hunting grounds.
Yeah, it is kinda odd that this rabid media that tortures Sox players hasn’t come up with a slew of even off-the-record sources that show how the Sox made a bunch of strong offers to FAs but were rebuffed because players have no interest in playing in Boston.
And then 2024 would count as a year over the threshold. . .
Right. And it’s not like the Sox have two alumni who are the most popular and influential players to come out of the DR. Two guys who are on TV constantly pumping up their old team.
The Sox have more than enough resources to easily cover any of the monetary penalties that could be levied for a payroll well over that initial line. Considering the Sox are currently $95 million under the initial penalty threshold for 2025, they have a ton of room to maneuver and could likely reset next year if they wanted (not that there would be any need to based on the numbers).
Michael Fulmer could be in the 2025 rotation mix. Has virtually the same career WAR as Jordan Montgomery in 100 less IP and they're the same age.
He could, but he hasn't really been a starter since 2018. Feels like that's a long shot.
I wouldn't expect Fulmer to return to starting at this point, he hasn't thrown more than 100 innings since 2018 and he's now recovering from his second TJ surgery, plus he'll be 32 next season. The only starters under contract for 2025 as it stands right now are Bello, Crawford, Whitlock and Houck, plus Winckowski and Walter who are both still on pre-arb deals. Barring an enormous 2024 from guys like Wikelman Gonzalez or Luis Perales, they're going to have to add pitching one way or the other next winter (or this season).
You don’t necessarily need to want to make a huge investment in the player for this to make sense. For example, Duran is slated for FA in 2029. If we estimate that he will earn $700k this year and next, and then $4m, $7m, and $10m in arb, we should consider offering him 5/$20m, a touch less than the projection in exchange for the commitment. That raises his AAV this year and next year, but lowers it considerably for the out years, when the team should be better, and it offers him some security.
Apparently you don’t recognize the MassLive cabal that is around solely for the purpose of torturing Sox players and writing negative things?
Also true, but a lot of these guys may have kids and a family. They may have already rooted somewhere and would prefer to be closer to the extended family. That uprooted family would still be in "Boston" for roughly 165 days..... probably longer if they are in school otherwise they're what? Moving during the middle of the semesters (or whatever they call the school years in elementary, middle, high-schools). Their wives (assuming most of these guys are straight) and kids are in THAT town. They want to see presumably every night after a game and in the mornings before going to their "jobs...."
But the "well you saw what he signed for" part would also apply to Snell, who does have big stuff, so this doesn't really work...
Sigh. Just so everyone understands, it is an edict from the top that politics is not to be discussed in any forum but V&N. The policy and whatever results from it are above my pay grade.
The story of the 2024 Red Sox is less Aristotle's Politics and more Aristophanes' Clouds
As I said, there's one final arbiter of this stuff, but I would say that what I deleted qualifies as politics as I understand it. MAGA/Blue State/Red State=politics. All I can say is err on the line of caution. There are ways to question cultural issues/differences other than going there.
