Why is the bolded true? He wasn't moved to the bullpen because he failed as a starter. He was moved because at the time they had too many starters. There's no reason to think they can't move him back to the rotation next year when they're clearly going to have an opening to fill (if not two or three).Could trade Houck to a team that thinks he is a starter, which the Red Sox clearly do not. He would get you a Top 100 prospect, no problem.
Had too many staters and a huge need in the pen which he seemed best equipped to handle. Multiple openings in the rotation (and pen) next year, it would be shocking if they don’t see him as in the mix (and likely a better option) than at least guys like Crawford, Seabold, Winckowski, Groome, Murphy, Etc.Why is the bolded true? He wasn't moved to the bullpen because he failed as a starter. He was moved because at the time they had too many starters. There's no reason to think they can't move him back to the rotation next year when they're clearly going to have an opening to fill (if not two or three).
2 of those 3 you mentioned are JAGs and 1 can only pitch every 3rd or 4th day. Trading Houck (for prospects?) to then turn around and trade other prospects for guys you hope can be as good as Houck makes no sense.We’ll there’s Garrett Whitlock for one, and Strahm and Sawamura. But also there should be plenty of bullpen arms available in the next two weeks (Chris Martin, Lou Trivino, Daniel Bard, Buck Farmer, Kyle Finnigan, Taylor Clarke, Anthony Bass and so on).
My point is that this FO and player development team is really good at tweaking mechanics and building good relievers. That decreases the value of a bird-in-hand reliever like Houck relative to his value as a starter on another team.
Well for that matter, half the players on our team are reconstructed JAGs.2 of those 3 you mentioned are JAGs and 1 can only pitch every 3rd or 4th day. Trading Houck (for prospects?) to then turn around and trade other prospects for guys you hope can be as good as Houck makes no sense.
Better than the current jags that would be pitching in the 8th inning most nights if you traded Houck.Well for that matter, half the players on our team are reconstructed JAGs.
I don’t know, man. Look at the 2022 reliever leaderboards. More than half are guys that almost nobody had heard of before this year (Helsley, Raley, Schreiber, Adam, Effross, Bass, Brebbia, Phillips, Lange, Abreu, Burke, Strahm, Matt Moore, et al.) Good teams build bullpens by individual pitches, not by name.Better than the current jags that would be pitching in the 8th inning most nights if you traded Houck.
We’ll there’s Garrett Whitlock for one, and Strahm and Sawamura. But also there should be plenty of bullpen arms available in the next two weeks (Chris Martin, Lou Trivino, Daniel Bard, Buck Farmer, Kyle Finnigan, Taylor Clarke, Anthony Bass and so on).
My point is that this FO and player development team is really good at tweaking mechanics and building good relievers. That decreases the value of a bird-in-hand reliever like Houck relative to his value as a starter on another team.
Why?Could trade Houck to a team that thinks he is a starter, which the Red Sox clearly do not. He would get you a Top 100 prospect, no problem.
One reason is because the Sox desperately need power. We’re 20th in MLB in home runs. We currently have a 2023 projected outfield of Duran, Verdugo and Refsnyder who would be lucky to hit 25 dingers combined, and the problem stands to worsen with potential losses of JDM and Bogaerts.Why?
Maybe MAYBE in the offseason. Maybe. But I dont see any way or reason that they would trade an important piece of this years contending team for prospects.Could trade Houck to a team that thinks he is a starter, which the Red Sox clearly do not. He would get you a Top 100 prospect, no problem.
Not sure what your point is. The same guy who has done a great job of getting Whitlock, and Schreiber for nothing also extended Barnes and added guys like Diekman Straum Sawamura etc.I don’t know, man. Look at the 2022 reliever leaderboards. More than half are guys that almost nobody had heard of before this year (Helsley, Raley, Schreiber, Adam, Effross, Bass, Brebbia, Phillips, Lange, Abreu, Burke, Strahm, Matt Moore, et al.) Good teams build bullpens by individual pitches, not by name.
JBJ_HOF was looking for prospects, if you're talking help for the rest of this season or next that might be a different conversation.One reason is because the Sox desperately need power. We’re 20th in MLB in home runs. We currently have a 2023 projected outfield of Duran, Verdugo and Refsnyder who would be lucky to hit 25 dingers combined, and the problem stands to worsen with potential losses of JDM and Bogaerts.
We also have, for the first time in a while, a really solid corps of pitching prospect depth aided by an advanced scouting and player development team.
Now I’m not sure what your point is. Strahm and Sawamura are both very good finds. Of 235 relievers (min. 20 IP), Strahm ranks 36th by FIP and Sawamura ranks 106th, just a hair better than Daniel Bard.Not sure what your point is. The same guy who has done a great job of getting Whitlock, and Schreiber for nothing also extended Barnes and added guys like Diekman Straum Sawamura etc.
He traded for Davis last year who was pretty bad and this year has been great. He traded for Robles last year who was great and then fell apart. Relievers are increidbly high variance, expecting that they can dump one of their few reliable guys and then add a bunch of other guys on the cheap and end up with a good bullpen seems pretty optimistic.
Being the 106th best reliever means you'd be like the 4th or maybe 5th best reliever on a good team, that's kind of the definition of a JAG. Maybe I'm a bit harsh on Strahm, but I don't feel like he's been anything more than a mediocre pen arm this year. Combined the 2 have a 0.5 wpa in 60 innings, which seems ok but nothing special.Now I’m not sure what your point is. Strahm and Sawamura are both very good finds. Of 235 relievers (min. 20 IP), Strahm ranks 36th by FIP and Sawamura ranks 106th, just a hair better than Daniel Bard.
Could it be related to the fact that many of TB's "relief" innings are really low-leverage stuff in relief of a one-inning opener? (no idea if leverage is baked into WAR)
You're both right! According to the Fangraphs website, park factors and leverage both factor into WAR. Still, it boggles my mind that our relief corps could have ~50% more WAR than Tampa Bay's given our abundant frustrations with them this year. BOS is 11th in reliever WAR---NYY of course are #1, with more than twice the WAR of Boston's unit. The majority of Boston's value has come from Schriber and Strahm (1.1 and 0.8 WAR) with then a cluster of guys with less than 0.5 WAR and 5 negative WAR guys (*headlined* by Robles with -0.6).Ballpark adjustments are probably a decent part of it, fenway is way hitter friendly and the trop is way pitcher friendly