Offseason rumors

[rodderick]

I mean, how much do you guys think he's actually worth? I don't believe there's a reasonable figure that would have trumped this great landing spot for him. I mean, look at the two situations, where would you want to go? It's pretty unreasonable to put this one on the Sox IMO. He's not a difference maker or anything close to it, and a questionable investment at best. It's not a sin to not go the extra mile for this type of player.

A lot of the board saw him as a fungible addition that would be good depth, and many didn't even want him back. Now we're pissed that we didn't pay a premium? Yeah, I'll save my outrage.

I didn't want Paxton because I think he's fungible with the bottom of the rotation guys we already have with a lower upside, but we really need to scrap the whole mentality that there's nothing the Sox can do to land free agents who draw interest from teams like the Dodgers. They aren't the sisters of the poor. They can offer a guy 13 million bucks on a one year deal early into the process and get it done. Now, in this particular case I wouldn't have liked the move, but it was absolutely 100% doable if they targeted Paxton as someone they'd like to have back.

 

[shepard50]

I guess my dream of T Bauer isn't going to come true......I would think he could be had for a reasonable price. I know, I know a lot of your guys don't want him here but......there seems to be a lot of players that don't want to be in Boston at the moment.

Trevor?! Is that you?

 

[SouthernBoSox]

I mean, how much do you guys think he's actually worth? I don't believe there's a reasonable figure that would have trumped this great landing spot for him. I mean, look at the two situations, where would you want to go? It's pretty unreasonable to put this one on the Sox IMO. He's not a difference maker or anything close to it, and a questionable investment at best. It's not a sin to not go the extra mile for this type of player.

A lot of the board saw him as a fungible addition that would be good depth, and many didn't even want him back. Now we're pissed that we didn't pay a premium? Yeah, I'll save my outrage.

They are one injury away from Cooper Criswell making significant starts.

Houck is starting.

They need to add a stater and Paxton probably had as much upside as any other starter available for a one year deal. His stuff was fantastic before understandably tiring out and he carried the staff for 3 months.

Honestly, it feels like they are completely punting. If the mandate is less than 2 years than Paxton was as good as they were gonna do. And they didn’t get him for 1/12mm. Here’s what you are left with….

View: https://twitter.com/edhand89/status/1749637205528605021?s=46


No one on that list who is available on a 1 year deal has a higher upside than Paxton. I don’t think there is even a question about that.

Again, right now, this starting rotation is worse than 2023.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

The rotation is worse, on paper, than last year, and so is the lineup. The path to success is improvement from the guys they’ve already got- the Whitlock’s, Story’s, and Abreu’s of the world. Not sure I’m buying it, but that seems to be the plan / hope. Adding an oft injured old pitcher like Paxton probably doesn’t change the teams fortunes in any significant way, yet the almost complete lack of action- especially on the rotation, after all the talk about that they planned to do, is frustrating.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

The rotation is worse, on paper, than last year, and so is the lineup. The path to success is improvement from the guys they’ve already got- the Whitlock’s, Story’s, and Abreu’s of the world. Not sure I’m buying it, but that seems to be the plan / hope. Adding an oft injured old pitcher like Paxton probably doesn’t change the teams fortunes in any significant way, yet the almost complete lack of action- especially on the rotation, after all the talk about that they planned to do, is frustrating.

I mean I don’t think Paxton is a savior but my god who are they going to add who is better on a one year deal?

They can’t even spend 13m on a one year deal for James Paxton? Even if they suck had be a great trade deadline disposition.

Are they gonna add any offensive backing?

You don’t just throw young players to the wolves, you surround them with leadership and backing that helps them.

Is 12mm for Paxton really not in the budget? They could have spent 12 on Paxton 8 on Pham and have a lower payroll than in 2023 and provided two nice veteran reinforcement’s.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Oh, I totally agree. I am guessing they will add someone like Jakob Junis as pitching depth; as for another bat, Turner still seems like the best fit, but I fully expect him to go back to LAD now too. They say they want a guy who can play multiple positions, maybe a Kike reunion is in order

 

[CR67dream]

No one on that list who is available on a 1 year deal has a higher upside than Paxton. I don’t think there is even a question about that.?

Yeah, I liked the idea of him too. I've said so repeatedly for a while. But he's not a difference maker worth changing the Sox valuation. I wish we were his best option. The Dodgers came out of nowhere, and made sure that wasn't the case.

Is 12mm for Paxton really not in the budget? They could have spent 12 on Paxton 8 on Pham and have a lower payroll than in 2023 and provided two nice veteran reinforcement’s.

Some of you are stuck on the money as if the Sox's stash has some special voodoo powers. He was not going to take 12 million from the Sox with the LA deal on the table if he has half a brain. I've asked already, but what do you guys think he is truly worth, and how high would you have bid to get him here? This isn't Yamamoto, and Paxton is not the kind of player you should do that kind of overpay for. I'm more pissed at the obscene disgusting greed of the Dodgers than I am at the Sox losing on this one. By far. Grosses me out on multiple levels. I'm rooting for a crash and burn by July.

 

[simplicio]

Oh, I totally agree. I am guessing they will add someone like Jakob Junis as pitching depth; as for another bat, Turner still seems like the best fit, but I fully expect him to go back to LAD now too. They say they want a guy who can play multiple positions, maybe a Kike reunion is in order

Turner needs to be a primary DH, he's too old to be in the field regularly.

So obviously they should sign him and ship that Ohtani guy to us, he seems expensive for a DH. Duran + Yorke should get it done.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Honest question: why is what the Dodgers are doing greed? They have significant financial resources and they are going all-in to leverage them to make their team better and more exciting. After watching how this ownership group for the Red Sox now operates, I find that almost refreshing.

There is going to be a reckoning at some point for LA but it’ll be a hell of a ride before that reckoning comes.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm more pissed at the obscene disgusting greed of the Dodgers than I am at the Sox losing on this one. By far. Grosses me out on multiple levels. I'm rooting for a crash and burn by July.

This is where I am as well (though I'm not sure I'd call it greed so much as overkill). I guess the only case to be made that the Sox blew it here is if you thought he should have been re-signed all along and they should/could have done it back in October/November before a market could develop for him. Offering him $12M back then probably gets the deal done, but what would the reaction have been to that? I don't think it would have been particularly happy. So it's hard to get too worked up that he "got away" in late January.

 

[HfxBob]

Honest question: why is what the Dodgers are doing greed? They have significant financial resources and they are going all-in to leverage them to make their team better and more exciting. After watching how this ownership group for the Red Sox now operates, I find that almost refreshing.

There is going to be a reckoning at some point for LA but it’ll be a hell of a ride before that reckoning comes.

If what the Dodgers are doing is greedy in the economic sense, doesn't that imply that what they're doing is also successful?

 

[YTF]

My 2 cents as I'm mostly thinking out loud. A couple of people have posted that the rotation is worse than last year and to be honest, I'm not seeing it. At least not yet. To be clear, I'm not overly inspired by the rotation as it currently stands, but I think I need to wait at least a month into the season before I make any sort of comparison and if I'm to continue being honest, I have no idea what I might be comparing. Last season's rotation seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The Sox used 17 different starting pitchers last season, only 7 of whom made more than 10 starts. To me that speaks volumes to the state of last season's rotation and I'm left to wonder exactly what version of that we should be comparing this year's rotation to.

 

[simplicio]

Subtracting Kluber's 9 starts and (please God) fixing whatever was wrong with Pivetta at the beginning of the year goes a long way toward improving our pitching baseline too.

 

[CR67dream]

Honest question: why is what the Dodgers are doing greed? They have significant financial resources and they are going all-in to leverage them to make their team better and more exciting. After watching how this ownership group for the Red Sox now operates, I find that almost refreshing.

There is going to be a reckoning at some point for LA but it’ll be a hell of a ride before that reckoning comes.

I'm not going to get too deep here, but I am deeply disgusted by the economics of professional sports, period. It's obscene.

This is where I am as well (though I'm not sure I'd call it greed so much as overkill).

That's fair, they are just fucking relentless, and playing by the rules or not, it rubs me the wrong way the same way it did back in the day when the Yankees bought championships for sport. And it makes me hope that the Dodgers 2024 season makes the Mets 2023 season look like a smashing success.

But blaming the Sox for not landing Paxton? Can't see it.

I guess the only case to be made that the Sox blew it here is if you thought he should have been re-signed all along and they should/could have done it back in October/November before a market could develop for him. Offering him $12M back then probably gets the deal done, but what would the reaction have been to that? I don't think it would have been particularly happy. So it's hard to get too worked up that he "got away" in late January.

He's a Boras guy. That never was going to happen. And I can't think of one poster who was lobbying for Paxton all along. If you're out there, let us know!!

 

[8slim]

Honest question: why is what the Dodgers are doing greed? They have significant financial resources and they are going all-in to leverage them to make their team better and more exciting. After watching how this ownership group for the Red Sox now operates, I find that almost refreshing.

There is going to be a reckoning at some point for LA but it’ll be a hell of a ride before that reckoning comes.

It’s not greed. The Dodgers are working within the rules of the game to build a monster team (on paper, anyway). Not one person here would characterize it as greed if our Sox were doing it.

 

[simplicio]

Let's not forget we originally had a 2/26 option on Paxton for 23-24 and not a tear was shed when the Sox declined it.

 

[HfxBob]

My 2 cents as I'm mostly thinking out loud. A couple of people have posted that the rotation is worse than last year and to be honest, I'm not seeing it. At least not yet. To be clear, I'm not overly inspired by the rotation as it currently stands, but I think I need to wait at least a month into the season before I make any sort of comparison and if I'm to continue being honest, I have no idea what I might be comparing. Last season's rotation seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The Sox used 17 different starting pitchers last season, only 7 of whom made more than 10 starts. To me that speaks volumes to the state of last season's rotation and I'm left to wonder exactly what version of that we should be comparing this year's rotation to.

I think the simple answer is that they subtracted Sale and Paxton and added Giolito. So then you have to look at the 2024 projections for Sale and Paxton vs. the 2024 projections for Giolito .

FanGraphs projected 2024 fWAR:
Sale 2.8
Paxton 2.3
Giolito 2.4

To complete the exercise of comparison you'd have to look at the total projected fWAR for the 2024 rotation vs. the total actual fWAR for 2023.

But I think most folks that say the rotation is worse are going on the gut feeling that losing Sale and Paxton hurts more than adding Giolito helps.

 

[moondog80]

I mean I don’t think Paxton is a savior but my god who are they going to add who is better on a one year deal?

They can’t even spend 13m on a one year deal for James Paxton? Even if they suck had be a great trade deadline disposition.

Are they gonna add any offensive backing?

You don’t just throw young players to the wolves, you surround them with leadership and backing that helps them.

Is 12mm for Paxton really not in the budget? They could have spent 12 on Paxton 8 on Pham and have a lower payroll than in 2023 and provided two nice veteran reinforcement’s.

There are the explanations that make sense:

1. Payroll is more or less set at what is, with very minor wiggle room.

2. They do plan on adding payroll, but they guys they are targeting are still out there.

3. The real cost of signing Paxton isn't 12 million, but the opportunity it takes away form Houck/Whitlock to reach their potential. If you can get say, Blake Snell on a one year deal (and I know you can't), that's one thing. But the marginal upgrade from Whitlock to a Paxton is trumped by the upside of unlocking one of the young guys.

Probably an element of all 3 in play, I would guess.

 

[HfxBob]

Let's not forget we originally had a 2/26 option on Paxton for 23-24 and not a tear was shed when the Sox declined it.

Right, but when they declined it there was question that Paxton would even be able to pitch in 2023, after not being healthy at the end of 2022 and given his overall health history.

 

[8slim]

My 2 cents as I'm mostly thinking out loud. A couple of people have posted that the rotation is worse than last year and to be honest, I'm not seeing it. At least not yet. To be clear, I'm not overly inspired by the rotation as it currently stands, but I think I need to wait at least a month into the season before I make any sort of comparison and if I'm to continue being honest, I have no idea what I might be comparing. Last season's rotation seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The Sox used 17 different starting pitchers last season, only 7 of whom made more than 10 starts. To me that speaks volumes to the state of last season's rotation and I'm left to wonder exactly what version of that we should be comparing this year's rotation to.

You’ll probably need to wait more than a month, because we’ll need to see how the rotation holds up when we’re struck by inevitable injuries.

Obviously we’ve had a bit of buzzard’s luck on that front the past couple seasons. But there aren’t many teams that don’t have to put their #6, #7 and #8 starters on the mound for a meaningful chunk of games throughout the 162.

I sure hope the guys we have get better. But most of the ones we’re hoping on are in their age 28+ season. Maybe this will be the year we finally get 150 innings from them at a reasonable ERA. But a few typical injuries strike and we may be even worse off than last season’s 3 man rotation travails.

Basically, I’d feel a whole lot better if Houck and Whitlock were in the pen because we adequately addressed the rotation this offseason.

 

[allmanbro]

My 2 cents as I'm mostly thinking out loud. A couple of people have posted that the rotation is worse than last year and to be honest, I'm not seeing it. At least not yet. To be clear, I'm not overly inspired by the rotation as it currently stands, but I think I need to wait at least a month into the season before I make any sort of comparison and if I'm to continue being honest, I have no idea what I might be comparing. Last season's rotation seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The Sox used 17 different starting pitchers last season, only 7 of whom made more than 10 starts. To me that speaks volumes to the state of last season's rotation and I'm left to wonder exactly what version of that we should be comparing this year's rotation to.

I'm with you on this. I think if you are comparing rotations, you have to look at the yearlong total that you got last year against the yearlong total you expect this year, not just pick slices of last year where Sale or Paxton or whoever looked especially good.

Sale and Paxton combined to 200 IP last year, and Giolito is projected to roughly 175. That extra 25 is made up by having Pivetta and Crawford stick in the rotation all year. Those aggregate innings next year will probably be just as good as we actually got from Sale/Paxton last year. If this team needs fewer innings from the #6+ guys on the depth chart, that is an improvement, and the starts they do get from those guys basically have to be better than the dregs of the rotation were last year. So even without assuming some big step forward from anyone, I think there's every reason to expect this rotation is better than last year. Not a ton better, but better.

I hope they find a way to add one more interesting piece in the rotation and even more Criswell/Fitts type depth, but Paxton is not a huge loss. I think it's fair to say this rotation is worse than we hoped it would be by now, but to say it is worse than last year is hyperbole.

 

[loneredseat]

Subtracting Kluber's 9 starts and (please God) fixing whatever was wrong with Pivetta at the beginning of the year goes a long way toward improving our pitching baseline too.

This article gave me a little hope. IF Whitlock turns into a solid starter... That could be a game changer.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

There are the explanations that make sense:

1. Payroll is more or less set at what is, with very minor wiggle room.

2. They do plan on adding payroll, but they guys they are targeting are still out there.

3. The real cost of signing Paxton isn't 12 million, but the opportunity it takes away form Houck/Whitlock to reach their potential. If you can get say, Blake Snell on a one year deal (and I know you can't), that's one thing. But the marginal upgrade from Whitlock to a Paxton is trumped by the upside of unlocking one of the young guys.

Probably an element of all 3 in play, I would guess.

Yea I mean the goal post are constantly shifting.

We had been told over and over again they have to add starting pitching. Kennedy, Breslow, Cora. Over and over and over again.

Right now Cooper Criswell is your 6th starter. Pitchers get injured.

They had swapped out Sale and Paxton for Giolito.

They have done NOTHING to support to the starting staff.

They have time to add, but I doubt they add an arm with higher upside than Paxton at this point.

Did people watch the games in September? It was legitimately sad. Well, you’re an injury away from September again.

They won’t trade the big 3. They won’t sign long term commitments. They have enormous roster holes…. I don’t know. It’s hard to be bullish.

 

[PapnMillsy]

Yeah, I liked the idea of him too. I've said so repeatedly for a while. But he's not a difference maker worth changing the Sox valuation. I wish we were his best option. The Dodgers came out of nowhere, and made sure that wasn't the case.



Some of you are stuck on the money as if the Sox's stash has some special voodoo powers. He was not going to take 12 million from the Sox with the LA deal on the table if he has half a brain. I've asked already, but what do you guys think he is truly worth, and how high would you have bid to get him here? This isn't Yamamoto, and Paxton is not the kind of player you should do that kind of overpay for. I'm more pissed at the obscene disgusting greed of the Dodgers than I am at the Sox losing on this one. By far. Grosses me out on multiple levels. I'm rooting for a crash and burn by July.

How can anyone be grossed out by what the Dodgers are doing? This is exactly the time of owners every fan should want. What the Red Sox are doing, charging a premium price for a mediocre product while slashing payroll is frankly what is disgusting. There can be no justification for it.

 

[HfxBob]

Giolito is being counted on to pitch a lot of innings. His track record indicates that's a reasonable expectation. But there's also the concerning fact that he was pitching at the end of 2023 like Kluber was pitching at the start of 2023. Which has been widely attributed to the situation with his divorce. I'm sure there's some truth in that, but I can't remember any precedent for such a streak of bad pitching being attributed to off-field issues.

 

[CR67dream]

It’s not greed. The Dodgers are working within the rules of the game to build a monster team (on paper, anyway). Not one person here would characterize it as greed if our Sox were doing it.

I would, though I'd hate it less, . Everyone's a hypocrite sometimes.

Seriously, if I start following minor league/Cape League ball exclusively it won't be because the Sox don't spend enough, it will be because I'm sickened by the whole ridiculous goddamn set up.
------------
"How can anyone be grossed out by what the Dodgers are doing?"
------------
I hate the fucking rules, hate the economics, and understand I'm an outlier. Not expecting a lot of agreement, and that's fine. Not the thread to unpack all that, but maybe I'll start one sometime soon. And I don't mind being challenged, it's just a strongly held opinion. Here's just not the place to go too deep.

Also, I did agree that "overkill" may be a better word here, but semantics aside, I'm being entirely honest with my thoughts here.

 

[Max Power]

It's possible the team didn't think Paxton was worth the opportunity cost of having both Houck and Crawford in the rotation. Depending on either Houck or Whitlock to be healthy at the same time seems like a poor idea, but it looks like they're going to try it.

Winckowski is also kind of a forgotten guy. He has the right pitch mix and health to be a starter if he can avoid hard contact.

 

[allmanbro]

I think the simple answer is that they subtracted Sale and Paxton and added Giolito. So then you have to look at the 2024 projections for Sale and Paxton vs. the 2024 projections for Giolito .

FanGraphs projected 2024 fWAR:
Sale 2.8
Paxton 2.3
Giolito 2.4

To complete the exercise of comparison you'd have to look at the total projected fWAR for the 2024 rotation vs. the total actual fWAR for 2023.

But I think most folks that say the rotation is worse are going on the gut feeling that losing Sale and Paxton hurts more than adding Giolito helps.

Why would we look at projections for next year to evaluate what the rotation was last year? What we actually got was:
Sale 2.1
Paxton 1.0

Giolito's 2.4 leaves 0.7 WAR to be made up in 25 innings, I'd guess by Crawford and Pivetta not being moved to the bullpen. I admit that probably leaves you something like 0.3-0.4 WAR short, but that's basically a wash when it comes to pitcher WAR, and I think the projection on Giolito is a little bit pessimistic.

 

[soxin6]

Giolito is being counted on to pitch a lot of innings. His track record indicates that's a reasonable expectation. But there's also the concerning fact that he was pitching at the end of 2023 like Kluber was pitching at the start of 2023. Which has been widely attributed to the situation with his divorce. I'm sure there's some truth in that, but I can't remember any precedent for such a streak of bad pitching being attributed to off-field issues.

Sure, he will pitch a lot of mediocre innings. Where is there any indication that Giolito will find his way back to anything but a guy who throws a lot of innings?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

It’s not greed. The Dodgers are working within the rules of the game to build a monster team (on paper, anyway). Not one person here would characterize it as greed if our Sox were doing it.

I’d be put off personally…. If they steamrolled through the season and won the WS it’d be fun but I’d still have a bad taste in my mouth.
IMO there needs to be harsher caps

 

[jon abbey]

I’d be put off personally…. If they steamrolled through the season and won the WS it’d be fun but I’d still have a bad taste in my mouth.

Here are the highest payrolls in MLB for 2018, did you have a bad taste in your mouth that year? (rhetorical question)

1. Red Sox: $239 million
2. Nationals: $205 million
3. Giants: $196 million
4. Dodgers: $195 million
5. Cubs: $193 million

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/12/17/final-mlb-payrolls-for-all-30-teams-show-second-largest-decline-since-2004/?sh=35beaa6de474

 

[Max Power]

Here are the highest payrolls in MLB for 2018, did you have a bad taste in your mouth that year? (rhetorical question)

1. Red Sox: $223 million
2. Giants: $203 million
3. Cubs: $183 million
4. Dodgers, Nationals: $180 million

Many of the guys on that team were not worth their Sale Price.

 

[jon abbey]

(I fixed my numbers, initially I posted the Opening Day numbers, these are the year-end ones)

 

[allmanbro]

It’s not greed. The Dodgers are working within the rules of the game to build a monster team (on paper, anyway). Not one person here would characterize it as greed if our Sox were doing it.

The problem in the system is that teams in LA and NY basically have a league enforced semi-monopoly on the biggest and richest media markets in the country. They are playing by the same rules, but they do have a built in financial advantage. That, to my mind, has always been the real problem. It's not mere payroll disparity - so in that sense I agree that the spending isn't greed. And I don't think salary caps are the best answer. Revenue sharing should be based on media market size and take into account things like the way owning a stadium, as LA real estate creates value that is not possible in KC. I don't have any specific ideas, but that is the actual inequity that needs to be evened out, because it's the one the league is protecting by preventing teams from moving in or expanding in already occupied markets, not inequity in revenue or payroll.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

It's possible the team didn't think Paxton was worth the opportunity cost of having both Houck and Crawford in the rotation. Depending on either Houck or Whitlock to be healthy at the same time seems like a poor idea, but it looks like they're going to try it.

Winckowski is also kind of a forgotten guy. He has the right pitch mix and health to be a starter if he can avoid hard contact.

Maybe, but again, it’s a monumental shift from what ownership, Breslow, and Cora have said directly.

 

[HfxBob]

I’d be put off personally…. If they steamrolled through the season and won the WS it’d be fun but I’d still have a bad taste in my mouth.
IMO there needs to be harsher caps

Some would argue that the caps in the latest CBA are pretty darn harsh, and there's not much left but an actual hard cap.

Maybe in the next CBA they will look at some sort of restrictions on deferrals or how they calculate the AAV for contracts with extreme deferrals like the ones in Ohtani's contract.

 

[loneredseat]

Along with a hard salary cap, how about a ticket price cap? Give the game back to the fans...

 

[LogansDad]

I think the simple answer is that they subtracted Sale and Paxton and added Giolito. So then you have to look at the 2024 projections for Sale and Paxton vs. the 2024 projections for Giolito .

FanGraphs projected 2024 fWAR:
Sale 2.8
Paxton 2.3
Giolito 2.4

To complete the exercise of comparison you'd have to look at the total projected fWAR for the 2024 rotation vs. the total actual fWAR for 2023.

But I think most folks that say the rotation is worse are going on the gut feeling that losing Sale and Paxton hurts more than adding Giolito helps.

These are those players numbers from 2021 through 2023. Even with Giolito's abysmal second half last year.



Those projections seem to assume a full season, and while I liked watching Paxton and Sale pitch when they were healthy, I think that not having to worry about 40% of your rotation going down hurt (Paxton has thrown more than 150 innings once in his entire career), is kind of nice.

The rotation, to me, has a solid floor, and some pretty serious upside right now. I do not think James Paxton would have been a major upgrade.

Bello
Giolito
Crawford
Pivetta

That's a solid top 4. If they can untap Houck's third time through potential it becomes a deep rotation.

You then have Criswell, Winckowski and Fitts (who I am really high on, and think he could be ready very soon) as injury depth.

They already have a deep bullpen, and if they shock us all and sign Montgomery (I doubt it happens) then that is a really good staff. Even without Montgomery, I think this staff can keep them competitive.

 

[simplicio]

I'd say it's equally easy to see this year's staff (as currently composed) being better or worse than last year. Hell I think just picking your top 5-6 guys and getting a year of decent health from them would get you there easily. But at the same time if you have a couple injuries at once the starter pool does get dicey in a hurry. Kluber was garbage last year but we at least had the depth available to banish him to the IL (at least we did until that depth broke).

Sure, he will pitch a lot of mediocre innings. Where is there any indication that Giolito will find his way back to anything but a guy who throws a lot of innings?

He had a 3.45 ERA in the first half last year. I don't think that guy is necessarily gone forever.

Here are the highest payrolls in MLB for 2018, did you have a bad taste in your mouth that year? (rhetorical question)

1. Red Sox: $239 million
2. Nationals: $205 million
3. Giants: $196 million
4. Dodgers: $195 million
5. Cubs: $193 million

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/12/17/final-mlb-payrolls-for-all-30-teams-show-second-largest-decline-since-2004/?sh=35beaa6de474

The 2018 Sox would have needed to be at $266m to match where the Dodgers are right now, relative to the CBT.

 

[Max Power]

(I fixed my numbers, initially I posted the Opening Day numbers, these are the year-end ones)

To answer your question, that 2018 team came in last in this poll.

Choosing your Favorite Child | Sons of Sam Horn

 

[Sin Duda]

To build to on what Max Power said, maybe the Red Sox are taking the approach that the Green Bay Packers took at the beginning of this year: everyone wanted them to add a veteran receiver or two to their core of unproven rookie and second year receivers. But the Packers didn't do that, and the early season losses magnified the angry chorus that they didn't build the team right.

But the second half of the season those unproven recievers started to prove themselves and the Packers started winning. Before you knew it they had actually qualified for the playoffs and pulled a first round upset. And they even took the expected Super Bowl representative from their conference to the last minute of the game on the road.

Not saying the Red Sox will be similar this year goven the commitment the Sox have made to pitching coaching - let the kids play!

 

[HfxBob]

These are those players numbers from 2021 through 2023. Even with Giolito's abysmal second half last year.

View attachment 77032

Those projections seem to assume a full season, and while I liked watching Paxton and Sale pitch when they were healthy, I think that not having to worry about 40% of your rotation going down hurt (Paxton has thrown more than 150 innings once in his entire career), is kind of nice.

The rotation, to me, has a solid floor, and some pretty serious upside right now. I do not think James Paxton would have been a major upgrade.

Bello
Giolito
Crawford
Pivetta

That's a solid top 4. If they can untap Houck's third time through potential it becomes a deep rotation.

You then have Criswell, Winckowski and Fitts (who I am really high on, and think he could be ready very soon) as injury depth.

They already have a deep bullpen, and if they shock us all and sign Montgomery (I doubt it happens) then that is a really good staff. Even without Montgomery, I think this staff can keep them competitive.

The rotation could be solid, but I think there's a massive X factor. None of Bello, Pivetta, Crawford or Houck can be said to be proven commodities. And with Giolito you've got that horrifying stretch to end his 2023 season. I think the range of outcomes is huge.

 

[CR67dream]

Here are the highest payrolls in MLB for 2018, did you have a bad taste in your mouth that year? (rhetorical question)

1. Red Sox: $239 million
2. Nationals: $205 million
3. Giants: $196 million
4. Dodgers: $195 million
5. Cubs: $193 million

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/12/17/final-mlb-payrolls-for-all-30-teams-show-second-largest-decline-since-2004/?sh=35beaa6de474

Speaking for myself, I already conceded that everyone's a hypocrite sometimes.... However, the Sox played nowhere near the games with payroll that the Dodgers have this year (Ohtani deferrals), and the disparity is just going to blow away any the Sox had in 2018.

Seriously though, yeah, for me the overall economics have taken some of the joy out of following the game.

IMO there needs to be harsher caps

That would certainly be a start. Changing deferral rules would help too. But again, not the thread to dig too deep on this.

 

[TomRicardo]

I'm not going to get too deep here, but I am deeply disgusted by the economics of professional sports, period. It's obscene.

How is it obscene? It is literally the last thing advertisers can use the old model of television on. It makes sense that a well run organization can make money hand over fist by producing an interesting product. Trying to begrudge labor for making their piece of the value of the product they produce is obscene.

 

[LogansDad]

Sure, he will pitch a lot of mediocre innings. Where is there any indication that Giolito will find his way back to anything but a guy who throws a lot of innings?

Giolito is going to be 29 and just put up the worst numbers of his career while changing teams twice within a couple of weeks and going through a divorce (that I have seen reported as ugly). He pitched fine, "well" even, before the first trade. And his underlying numbers were still pretty close to what James Paxton put up in a year that people seem to suddenly be clamoring was really good and a huge upgrade on whatever Giolito could possibly give them.

Paxton is going to be 35, and completely wore down after throwing about 60 innings last year, the most he had thrown since 2019.

I am really not sure where this narrative that Paxton is guaranteed to be better than Giolito in 2024 (or further out) is even coming from.

 

[jteders1]

I'll only add, that I agree that there need to be harsher caps, but I'd also like to see penalties for minuscule payrolls. If you're going to tell the Dodgers that they can only spend 225m or lose a pick then you should say the same to the A's if they don't spend 100m. What's good for the goose and all that.

 

[YTF]

I think the simple answer is that they subtracted Sale and Paxton and added Giolito. So then you have to look at the 2024 projections for Sale and Paxton vs. the 2024 projections for Giolito .

FanGraphs projected 2024 fWAR:
Sale 2.8
Paxton 2.3
Giolito 2.4

To complete the exercise of comparison you'd have to look at the total projected fWAR for the 2024 rotation vs. the total actual fWAR for 2023.

But I think most folks that say the rotation is worse are going on the gut feeling that losing Sale and Paxton hurts more than adding Giolito helps.

You’ll probably need to wait more than a month, because we’ll need to see how the rotation holds up when we’re struck by inevitable injuries.

Obviously we’ve had a bit of buzzard’s luck on that front the past couple seasons. But there aren’t many teams that don’t have to put their #6, #7 and #8 starters on the mound for a meaningful chunk of games throughout the 162.

I sure hope the guys we have get better. But most of the ones we’re hoping on are in their age 28+ season. Maybe this will be the year we finally get 150 innings from them at a reasonable ERA. But a few typical injuries strike and we may be even worse off than last season’s 3 man rotation travails.

Basically, I’d feel a whole lot better if Houck and Whitlock were in the pen because we adequately addressed the rotation this offseason.

I'm with you on this. I think if you are comparing rotations, you have to look at the yearlong total that you got last year against the yearlong total you expect this year, not just pick slices of last year where Sale or Paxton or whoever looked especially good.

Sale and Paxton combined to 200 IP last year, and Giolito is projected to roughly 175. That extra 25 is made up by having Pivetta and Crawford stick in the rotation all year. Those aggregate innings next year will probably be just as good as we actually got from Sale/Paxton last year. If this team needs fewer innings from the #6+ guys on the depth chart, that is an improvement, and the starts they do get from those guys basically have to be better than the dregs of the rotation were last year. So even without assuming some big step forward from anyone, I think there's every reason to expect this rotation is better than last year. Not a ton better, but better.

I hope they find a way to add one more interesting piece in the rotation and even more Criswell/Fitts type depth, but Paxton is not a huge loss. I think it's fair to say this rotation is worse than we hoped it would be by now, but to say it is worse than last year is hyperbole.

Thanks for your responses and thoughts. Part of my thinking also includes the fact that Kluber started nine games from the opener to the end of May with a 6.26 ERA over 41.2 IP so it seems that subtraction of Sale and Paxton shouldn't be the only considerations here.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

My 2 cents as I'm mostly thinking out loud. A couple of people have posted that the rotation is worse than last year and to be honest, I'm not seeing it. At least not yet. To be clear, I'm not overly inspired by the rotation as it currently stands, but I think I need to wait at least a month into the season before I make any sort of comparison and if I'm to continue being honest, I have no idea what I might be comparing. Last season's rotation seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The Sox used 17 different starting pitchers last season, only 7 of whom made more than 10 starts. To me that speaks volumes to the state of last season's rotation and I'm left to wonder exactly what version of that we should be comparing this year's rotation to.

Mostly with you on this. Though I think both rotations are / were absolutely terrible (for a $200m budget, for Kansas City, it's not bad). The "plan" for last season's rotation was Sale, Paxton, Kluber, and i guess seeing what transpired from Houck, Whitlock, Bello and Pivetta. That is / was a terrible plan and unsurprisingly, ended up being terrible.

This year's rotation at least has the unknown of youth (it could be good, it could be terrible). Though I don't think either scenario is "likely", I do think there is a higher likelihood of multiple players worth of improvement from the Giolito, Crawford, Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski group than of Chris Sale and James Paxton both being healthy (or whatever version of Corey Kluber is out there being good).



In other words, I'm glad Paxton signed with "not the Red Sox." I didn't want him here, and I don't want any old, one year SPs in the rotation. Either sign a real FA contract (Montgomery or Snell, which they won't do) or see what the kids have. Paxton, Ryu, Lorenzen, whatever, mean very little in terms of making the playoffs or not and only force them to not see what they have with the youth. Stop the asinine cycle of building the rotation year by year on one year deals.

 

[TomRicardo]

Sure, he will pitch a lot of mediocre innings. Where is there any indication that Giolito will find his way back to anything but a guy who throws a lot of innings?

Yea but the Red Sox really really really needed a guy who threw a lot of innings, especially one that does and throws a lot of Ks. My problem with Giolito contract is that Red Sox took most of the contract risk when it doesn't look they needed to. We will see what Snell and Montgomery get but right now Giolito looks like the right guy for the wrong price.

The Red Sox are becoming the shitty team that players have one year contracts with large insurance options in case it doesn't work out. It is like if Tampa Bay threw stupid money to beg players to come. FSG in its quest to avoid bad contracts in the future, keeps giving shit contracts in the present. Yoshida, Story, and Giolito are vast overpays for people who make sense to pick up but not at the cost that they did.

Edit - I would not call FSG fiscally responsible over the last couple of years or even risk adverse. They have not invested well and have made a bunch bad bets. They also have not invested in the system so much as not traded for any talent while getting their teeth kicked in. Nothing the Red Sox have done since 2018 has been a sound investment. It is mostly inaction, bad misreads of the market, throwing spaghetti at the wall, and heavy incompetence from a Front Office / Ownership Level.

Right now the Red Sox are playing themselves into a corner. There is a non zero chance the Red Sox may have two of the five top SP free agents entering the market and they designed it this way. They are on the outside looking across a fairly decent size divide looking at relevance and, in terms of pitching, have no real prospects coming in to help them. Meanwhile Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and the Yankees are in much better pitching situations (hell Tampa improved theirs by ripping off the Dodgers) in the long term. Shit the Orioles have a better system than the Red Sox do right now overall and project for 20+ more wins.

 

[simplicio]

Thanks for your responses and thoughts. Part of my thinking also includes the fact that Kluber started nine games from the opener to the end of May with a 6.26 ERA over 41.2 IP so it seems that subtraction of Sale and Paxton shouldn't be the only considerations here.

Pivetta's starts at the beginning were truly terrible as well. We're all hoping that's fixed; it was definitely an anomaly in his Sox career.