2018-19 Offseason Thread

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,531
Is anyone else dreading the Yankees swooping in with a last minute 5/100 offer for Eovaldi, or am I just emotionally damaged?
I can't see them blowing the market for Eovaldi after they held the line on Corbin.
 

TimScribble

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
715
Free-agent RHP Nathan Eovaldi in agreement with #RedSox, pending physical, sources tell The Athletic.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,794
Richmond, VA
I hope the Cervelli rumors are false. Can’t exactly remember why, but he’s one of my least favorite MLB players.

When I think of him, I think of a colossal douche with every STD known to man. Also PEDs and back zits.
My problem with him is the multiple concussions he had last year. Pass.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
13,316
Somewhere
Depending on your metric, Happ is anywhere from the best to third-best starter on the FA market. Wouldn’t remnants would be guys like Edwin Jackson?
Moot now, but "remnants" in the literal sense, the remaining quantity.

Some players are going to take smaller contracts once they no longer have multiple bidders. Happ is a risk for this because his performance demands a larger contract but his age suggests otherwise. Lynn has the added complication of his poor postseason showing.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,954
Moot now, but "remnants" in the literal sense, the remaining quantity.

Some players are going to take smaller contracts once they no longer have multiple bidders. Happ is a risk for this because his performance demands a larger contract but his age suggests otherwise. Lynn has the added complication of his poor postseason showing.
Lynn is weird. Casual Yankee fans seem to hate him, but he had a decent year — particularly if you want to discount his first month because of the late sign. He had an excellent 3.35 FIP after May 22, and finished with higher velocity than he ever had with the Cards.

Anyway, there are fewer teams tanking/tearing down this year. I think he'll get more than a one-year contract.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,954
Pick three pitchers from this list:

Buchholz, Bumgarner, Cahill, Cashner, Chacin, Cole, Estrada, Fiers, Gibson, G. Gonzalez, Graveman, S. Gray, Happ, Harvey, Hellickson, E. Jackson, Keuchel, Lynn, Miley, S. Miller, Morton, Nova, Odorizzi, Pineda, Pomeranz, Porcello, Roark, Ross, Ryu, Sabathia, Sale, An. Sanchez, Santana, Shields, Shoemaker, Verlander, Wacha, Wheeler, Wood
To update, we need two guys from this list before 2020. (The bold names are free agents this year, unbolded names available next.)

Even with Eovaldi, it still seems better to get a second pitcher now rather than two next offseason. Sale, Verlander and Cole are the big prizes next year, and in a best case* scenario we'll sign one of them, but it would cost a ton. So will Wheeler if he has another 4-5 win season.

If we're going over the secondary threshold this year anyway, and since our trade options are limited, I'd see if we can also sign Morton now rather than two of the unbolded names above next year.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,954
Who do you bump from the rotation? Or do you go with the (often-discussed, rarely-implemented) 6-man rotation?
It's a limited market for Porcello, but one season of him tracks perfectly with Cueto's and Ohtani's TJS. He's a lock for 180 innings, but with his decreasing velocity, rising walk rate, rising home run rate, I'm not sure we'd want them.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,779
It's a limited market for Porcello, but one season of him tracks perfectly with Cueto's and Ohtani's TJS. He's a lock for 180 innings, but with his decreasing velocity, rising walk rate, rising home run rate, I'm not sure we'd want them.
This plan seems a little too clever by half - for starters, why wouldn't one of those teams just sign Morton and be done with it?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,954
Why are we proposing to trade Porcello again?
I’d rather Morton than Porcello this year and Morton over whomever we’d get to replace Porcello next year. Signing him to, say, a 2/$32M contract would also keep him from going to one of our rivals.

It’s essentially what Cashman is doing with Gray. I agree it’s probably too cute, but I’m not a big Porcello guy.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
I’d rather Morton than Porcello this year and Morton over whomever we’d get to replace Porcello next year. Signing him to, say, a 2/$32M contract would also keep him from going to one of our rivals.

It’s essentially what Cashman is doing with Gray. I agree it’s probably too cute, but I’m not a big Porcello guy.
I'll take steady-eddy reliable Porcello over old Morton, thanks. I'm sure I'm not alone in that thought, either.

I hope you realize that list of pitchers you posted that you say we need to choose from for our 2020 rotation is not static. Things change and a lot of variables and scenarios will be in play well before 2020 rolls around.

Sonny Gray would kill to have Rick's consistency, and consistency is something you don't value in numbers, but it most definitely matters quite a bit.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,783
I don't think DD will be getting too cute trying to trade Peter to sign Paul (and then trade for Mary). The rotation is set and it's dominant (yes... like every other team out there... assuming good health across the rotation).
Sale
Price
Porcello
Eovaldi
Rodriguez
I'm putting them in this order as 1-5 not arguing about ability as much as I think there's some seniority mixed with ability in how they'll start the year.

Bullpen just needs one addition. I'm assuming both Johnson and Wright will be in there unless they think they can get a decent prospect for either of them. Add Barnes and FA (Kelly or Robertson) and I think that's a solid core.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
11,489
Michigan
...
Bullpen just needs one addition. I'm assuming both Johnson and Wright will be in there unless they think they can get a decent prospect for either of them. Add Barnes and FA (Kelly or Robertson) and I think that's a solid core.
You forgot Ryan “Full Tilt” Braiser.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I don't think DD will be getting too cute trying to trade Peter to sign Paul (and then trade for Mary). The rotation is set and it's dominant (yes... like every other team out there... assuming good health across the rotation).
Sale
Price
Porcello
Eovaldi
Rodriguez
I'm putting them in this order as 1-5 not arguing about ability as much as I think there's some seniority mixed with ability in how they'll start the year.

Bullpen just needs one addition. I'm assuming both Johnson and Wright will be in there unless they think they can get a decent prospect for either of them. Add Barnes and FA (Kelly or Robertson) and I think that's a solid core.
Who's your closer?
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
22,227
I don't know who Rodriquez is.

Eduardo Rodriguez is at worst a back-end rotation piece. he's not starting the season in the pen.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,122
Nashua, NH
One guy that's a solid 3 and three others that are viable 5/6s isn't quality depth? Since when?
I don't get it either.

Eduardo Rodriguez isn't good enough to be our 5th starter? Really?!? He was a top 60 SP by WAR using both methods last season, despite only pitching 130 innings last season. If you need a few starts from the Johnson/Wright/Velazquez group, so be it. Why spend 8 figures to bring in Morton to effectively be Rodriguez for an extra 30 innings (assuming IP history repeats itself, which is a big assumption)?
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,432
Unless he has no other options, no starter is going to come here with there being such a murky path to spot in the rotation.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,794
Richmond, VA
I don't think DD will be getting too cute trying to trade Peter to sign Paul (and then trade for Mary). The rotation is set and it's dominant (yes... like every other team out there... assuming good health across the rotation).
Sale
Price
Porcello
Eovaldi
Rodriguez
I'm putting them in this order as 1-5 not arguing about ability as much as I think there's some seniority mixed with ability in how they'll start the year.
Yeah, it makes no sense to send someone from this rotation out on a jet plane, for 500 miles.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
10,246
Don't understand the shade Semper threw on Rodriguez.

Career: 4.12 era, 107 era+, 3.97 fip, 1.28 whip, 9.0 k/9
2018: 3.82 era, 114 era+, 3.65 fip, 1.27 whip, 10.1 k/9

What's not to like about that? Dude is just 25. Will be 26 when the season starts, just now should be entering his prime. 3.0 bWAR pitcher last year, making way less than he's worth. You don't find many better values than that. I'd love to see him take the next step (like 18 wins, though yeah, that isn't as relevant, 3.33-3.50 era, something like that), but if he stayed as THIS, that's still a well above average starting pitcher, and he's the #5. Absolutely ZERO to complain about there.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,864
Maine
Seems to me the only flaw/concern with ERod so far in his career has been his durability. But if the bottom line expectation for him is to be the #5 in the rotation, his ability to throw 180+ innings isn't necessarily the highest priority for him to be a valuable asset.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,750
Seems to me the only flaw/concern with ERod so far in his career has been his durability. But if the bottom line expectation for him is to be the #5 in the rotation, his ability to throw 180+ innings isn't necessarily the highest priority for him to be a valuable asset.
He's kinda like Clay Buccholz in that regard. He's good, but for like half a season.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,937
Don't understand the shade Semper threw on Rodriguez.

Career: 4.12 era, 107 era+, 3.97 fip, 1.28 whip, 9.0 k/9
2018: 3.82 era, 114 era+, 3.65 fip, 1.27 whip, 10.1 k/9

What's not to like about that? Dude is just 25. Will be 26 when the season starts, just now should be entering his prime. 3.0 bWAR pitcher last year, making way less than he's worth. You don't find many better values than that. I'd love to see him take the next step (like 18 wins, though yeah, that isn't as relevant, 3.33-3.50 era, something like that), but if he stayed as THIS, that's still a well above average starting pitcher, and he's the #5. Absolutely ZERO to complain about there.

Given all the money going elsewhere, the team is almost required to give him every shot to get 30 starts.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,783
Wasn't his injury last season non-pitching related? He got stepped on or something? It's not like he has a fragile shoulder or elbow...
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,531
Seems to me the only flaw/concern with ERod so far in his career has been his durability. But if the bottom line expectation for him is to be the #5 in the rotation, his ability to throw 180+ innings isn't necessarily the highest priority for him to be a valuable asset.
I wouldn't characterize Rodriguez as having durability concerns - he missed time last season after a collision at first base. His performance in the first half of the 2018 season seems to indicate that he was fully recovered from the knee issues.
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
I’d rather Morton than Porcello this year and Morton over whomever we’d get to replace Porcello next year. Signing him to, say, a 2/$32M contract would also keep him from going to one of our rivals.

It’s essentially what Cashman is doing with Gray. I agree it’s probably too cute, but I’m not a big Porcello guy.
Do you consider the Rays a rival? http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/rays/2018/12/07/rays-considering-ex-astro-charlie-morton-among-starting-pitching-options/
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,864
Maine
I wouldn't characterize Rodriguez as having durability concerns - he missed time last season after a collision at first base. His performance in the first half of the 2018 season seems to indicate that he was fully recovered from the knee issues.
I didn't mean to imply that he has durability concerns moving forward so much as the only negative on his resume so far is that he has gotten hurt often. In other words, there should be no concerns over his performance based on what he's done to date. If he's healthy, he produces. He's got nothing chronic to be worried about unless you believe the knee injuries that plagued him for a couple years aren't behind him. And for the first time in a couple years, he made it through the whole season without that particular injury flaring up. Whether it is because he's past it or because it was preempted by the ankle injury remains to be seen. I'm confident he's good to go, but there's prudence in only counting on him for 140-150 innings in 2019 and anything beyond that is a happy bonus. That's still a hell of a fifth starter.
 

pdub

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2007
457
I could see a team splurging on Kimbrel though. I'd be surprised if his price goes down enough that we are able to sign him on a good deal.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,610
Portsmouth, NH
The AL had some pretty shitty teams this year. Only six even had a .500 record. And five had 95 or more losses, three with over 100. Win totals were skewed and I think we need to start adjusting to it as more and more we’re going to see a divide.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,592
Rogers Park
The AL had some pretty shitty teams this year. Only six even had a .500 record. And five had 95 or more losses, three with over 100. Win totals were skewed and I think we need to start adjusting to it as more and more we’re going to see a divide.
This may be for another thread, but I think we're nearing a course correction.

The Cubs and Astros remade themselves by being abjectly horrible for a few years. Since that time, a number of teams have imitated that strategy of building a contender by stripping the 25 man roster all the way to the studs. Let's call it a "deep" rebuild — the kind where you expect to lose 100 games for three years — to contrast it from older, shallower rebuilds. We have seen recent rebuilds of this type from Philadelphia and Atlanta; current ones from CWS, Minnesota, Miami, San Diego; and perhaps Baltimore, KC and Seattle are heading in this direction.

But now, we're in a situation where the limitation of that strategy are starting to emerge. That strategy assumes that you can put together a core of elite players — Correa, Altuve, Springer, Bregman; Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Baez, Schwarber, Contreras — by trading anything and everything of value from the 25 man, and pocketing the resulting high draft picks. But there are a limited number of franchise-altering prospects. If two or three teams are in deep rebuilds at a given moment, you can pocket four or five of these players: the trade market is tilted in your favor, and a given number of losses offers a better draft position. But if eight or nine teams are in deep rebuilds, it will be harder to make that process work. More teams will be chasing those handful of top prospects, and the returns on those trades will be lower. And of course, only one team can get the top overall pick; in this year's June draft, teams with 95 losses will pick 6th and 7th. As recently as 2016, a 95 loss team would have picked 2nd, after the 103 loss Twins.

You risk investing years of losses, and coming out of your deep rebuild with only a few stars, not a franchise altering core.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,610
Portsmouth, NH
This may be for another thread, but I think we're nearing a course correction.

The Cubs and Astros remade themselves by being abjectly horrible for a few years. Since that time, a number of teams have imitated that strategy of building a contender by stripping the 25 man roster all the way to the studs. Let's call it a "deep" rebuild — the kind where you expect to lose 100 games for three years — to contrast it from older, shallower rebuilds.

But now, we're in a situation where the limitation of that strategy are starting to emerge. That strategy assumes that you can put together a core of elite players — Correa, Altuve, Springer, Bregman; Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Baez, Schwarber, Contreras — by trading anything of value from the 25 man, and pocketing the resulting high draft picks. But there are a limited number of franchise-altering prospects. If two or three teams are in deep rebuilds at a given moment, you can pocket four or five of these players. The Astros and Cubs are good because they have all of these All-Star level players in their pre-FA years.

(They got there a different way, but we could say the same thing for the Red Sox: when you get literally 31 fWAR from pre-FA players, as the 2018 Red Sox did, led by their homegrown position player core of Betts (11), Bogaerts (5), Benintendi (4), and Bradley (3), it's not rocket science to build a contender — you complement it with high-priced FA like Price and JDM, whom you can afford because of how much surplus value is accrued by the pre-FA portions of the roster.)

But if eight or nine teams are in deep rebuilds, it will be harder to make that process work the way the Cubs and Stros did it. More teams will be chasing those handful of top prospects, and the returns on those trades will be lower. Only one team can get the top overall pick; in this year's June draft, teams with 95 losses will pick 6th and 7th. As recently as 2016, a 95 loss team would have picked 2nd, after the 103 loss Twins.

You risk investing years of losses, and coming out of your deep rebuild with only a few stars, not a franchise altering core.
I don’t really think it’s about trading for prospects - those Astros and Cubs made their core through the draft (Rizzo and Russel being the exceptions, but neither were for huge pieces, they were just good deals). And yes, only one team can pick first but it’s not about picking first in MLB, especially the way the draft is built now. It’s about your budget, since you can’t spend whatever you want anymore. Only a few of the guys you listed were #1 picks. The difference is that teams have started to realize it’s not worth adding a mediocre free agent for $10M to add a win or two. So we’re seeing less of teams like the Pirates signing a Jeromy Burnitz to feign trying to win to their fans. As the incomes start to abandon the middle class, much like the NFL with a rookie QB on a cheap deal, teams will be built like you mention, with a young cheap core and a few super high priced guys. And since there’s no floor in MLB, there’s no need to sign that 1 WAR FA for $10M. Teams are making their money through revenue sharing, not ticket sales so they don’t mind a few down years to get to the top. I don’t think any tide is changing I think it’s going to get more divided. But ymmv.

Edit: I’m not sure how you see a course correction when a full quarter of the league lost 95 or more games and three at 100 or more. That has to be unprecedented.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,592
Rogers Park
I don’t really think it’s about trading for prospects - those Astros and Cubs made their core through the draft (Rizzo and Russel being the exceptions, but neither were for huge pieces, they were just good deals). And yes, only one team can pick first but it’s not about picking first in MLB, especially the way the draft is built now. It’s about your budget, since you can’t spend whatever you want anymore. Only a few of the guys you listed were #1 picks. The difference is that teams have started to realize it’s not worth adding a mediocre free agent for $10M to add a win or two. So we’re seeing less of teams like the Pirates signing a Jeromy Burnitz to feign trying to win to their fans. As the incomes start to abandon the middle class, much like the NFL with a rookie QB on a cheap deal, teams will be built like you mention, with a young cheap core and a few super high priced guys. And since there’s no floor in MLB, there’s no need to sign that 1 WAR FA for $10M. Teams are making their money through revenue sharing, not ticket sales so they don’t mind a few down years to get to the top. I don’t think any tide is changing I think it’s going to get more divided. But ymmv.

Edit: I’m not sure how you see a course correction when a full quarter of the league lost 95 or more games and three at 100 or more. That has to be unprecedented.
To be clear, I don't see it in the recent past, I anticipate it in the near future. It's one thing to lose 90 games and get the #6 pick. It's another thing to lose 90 games and pick #12.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,750
Edit: I’m not sure how you see a course correction when a full quarter of the league lost 95 or more games and three at 100 or more. That has to be unprecedented.
It isn't. In 2002 and 6 teams lost 100 or more and 7 lost at least 95. 8 lost 90. Whether 2018 is a trend or an outlier remains to be seen.