- Dec 14, 2019
Our primary disagreement is that you seem to be implying that Martin is "non-dominant".To your question @YTF and to @JM3 point, I could probably be a bit more clear. It's not that I think ALL non-closers are totally fungible, I think that the vast majority of bullpen pieces we've had or acquired the past several seasons are totally fungible. In short, if someone is a relief pitcher but not a bona fide closer, 28 or over, and doesn't have a track record of dominance in the 'pen, I think they're totally fungible on a rebuilding team that isn't put together to contend for a title in that season.
Build a team the way we did in 2003-2008 or 2015-2019 and I'd totally get spending on the 'pen too, when you're spending everywhere else to try and win a title. I don't think anyone would argue we're spending to try and win a title right now (nor do I think that is the plan, to be clear).
But it's why I was strongly advocating (using Baseball Trade Values) trading something like Shcrieber and Duran for HS Kim (not that I thought SD would ever do it, but the numbers matched up) but also said there was no way I'd trade Houck for HS Kim (due to years of control for each).
In long -
If Whitlock or Houck were pitching out of the bullpen, I wouldn't so cavalier about them, nor would I be advocating to trade them. I want to make that crystal clear.
I'm very intrigued by Murphy (SSS alert) with his 4.0 k to bb ratio and I want to see a heck of a lot more of him the rest of the way to see if he can be a shut down relief pitcher. I feel mostly the same way about Crawford as a relief pitcher (though I totally support trying him in the rotation right now). I certainly am not suggesting to move either of those players, and I certainly wouldn't be advocating moving someone in their early 20s and pitching like Daniel Bard in 2009 or even Manny Delcarmen in 2005.
I also don't want to just get rid of those guys for nothing (as mentioned), especially Winckowski because at least he is dirt cheap, but if you can get real value for any of Martin (because I don't think the Sox are going to be good next year either based on what I perceive "the plan" to be) or Winckowski (because he is out-performing his FIP by a run and a half and only has a 6.4 k/9 ratio), I'd certainly do it. If someone offered you stupid value for Kenley, I'd take that too, but I wouldn't be actively soliciting trade offers the way I would for Martin (or Winckowski, but again, he'd be tougher for me to move).
Because I do think that the Chris Martin's of the world have a lot more value on a contending team than on this team, and I really hope that Bloom is actively trying to see if that is the case. If he now goes and moves Martin for "Ben Brown", I'll applaud him for spending $13.75m (see below) to get a really good prospect and call that a clear win for Bloom where I was wrong - but I think you need to make the trade to actually capitalize on that value.
However, generally speaking, I think spending any money on old, non-dominant, non-closers when the rest of your team is put together to be "meh" is just flushing away money that could be used elsewhere because you can probably get the same from guys off the scrap heap or any youngish "failed" SP in the minors.
I think this season has added more fuel to my f
& that you'd rather use that money to sign ok players to long term contracts where their most valuable season is during that same time period you're conceding.
& to some extent how easy it is to backfill a whole relief core without having to shuttle through a lot of awful play, but mostly the 1st 2 things.