Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,305
I think they like Refsnyder as a fourth outfielder and wouldn’t have given him that kind of money to be a fifth, especially since his days in the infield are over. To me that strongly suggests that Verdugo is out.
Refsnyder is signed for $1.2M, not much more than the minimum. I am not sure how that says much of anything but YMMV.

I have been kicking around the trade below to grab Kim and Kepler to round out the position players. I have no idea of Zavala's availability or attractiveness to the Twins, he was just the closest comp to Kepler's value. The point would be whatever prospect/reliever package the Twins and Padres would agree on for Kepler.

60173
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,305
If Duval is signed there likely isn't room under the cap for both Adrus and Kim, but I list both thinking that we get one or the other. I love that Kim plays very good defense, but of the two prefer Andrus at SS as I think if pressed into duty Arroyo seems better suited for 2B
Maybe I am mis-reading but Kim is a SS, he just moved to 2B for Bogey. Arroyo would be the 2B for either Andrus or Kim.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,458
I’d be into that kind of deal.

If Duvall is a yes, then our outfield picture would look like Yoshida, Kiké, Verdugo, Refsnyder, Duvall, Duran and maybe Valdez and Alfaro here or there, with no real DH slot to rotate them through. That's too many!
I don't think I really want Duran/Valdez/Alfaro taking any OF reps, & if Kiké is also taking MI reps, 4.5 OF seems legit. Duran can start in AAA. I had him as their 3rd CF on that other chart, but doesn't really seem like a necessary carry with those other guys.

I think they like Refsnyder as a fourth outfielder and wouldn’t have given him that kind of money to be a fifth, especially since his days in the infield are over. To me that strongly suggests that Verdugo is out.
I don't think $1.2m is insane $$$ for a 5th outfielder, but as mentioned, he's more of a 4 1/2th outfielder.

The Padres could use a LF and something like Pivetta and Verdugo for Kim would certainly work. Maybe they go for Eguy Rosario? I like dealing Houck for the right kind of thing but I'm not totally sold that two years of Kim is the right kind of thing.
I think Houck kinda is the right thing so dealing him would be perhaps a mistake in general, but who knows? Pivetta/Verdugo for Kim does make a fair amount of sense for both teams.

This kind of depth is nice. I don't think Andrus will be our guy but I could very well be wrong.
He fits in with a lot of the stuff they have going on - short term contract, low strikeout rate, pretty decent defense. He's obviously a flawed player, but for like 2/$20m if they can fit it under the tax? I don't think they could do much better.

One other name I could see them trade Verdugo for is Braves RHP Ian Anderson. He's right in the window Pivetta was when we traded for him, some early success marred by injury and recent struggles (COVID seemed to derail him a bit), and now he's buried in their rotation. He's got a unique arm angle and throws a hell of a changeup. I wonder if spending a year with Corey Kluber might help that curveball.
Ian Anderson kind of strikes me as a worse Houck tbh...he has a career 7.05 ERA in 52.1 innings 3rd time through the lineup. I have no issue adding more of those upside type guys who can give you 5 really good innings, but I don't see the appeal in moving off Houck to move onto Anderson.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,305
SSS, but Kim started 63 games in '21, 21 of them at 2B. I'm Guessing SD saw enough of him and feel confident enough in his defense to think he can make the adjustment.
I am sure Kim is more than capable of playing 2B, but if the MI is Kim/Arroyo than Kim would be at SS. It seemed like you were saying you would rather have Andrus than Kim because Arroyo would have to play SS if they acquired Kim.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,915
Honolulu HI
Having to move Verdugo and/or Enrique out of position seems like to be externalized by the Yoshida/Turner signings. We needed 1 DH, not 2.
It’s a choice between OF defense and INF defense. Enrique is our best defender at every position he is able to play. Prior to coming to the Red Sox he was more of an INF than an OF and he was excellent (mostly at 2b). His numbers at SS suggest he has the potential to be elite there as well (9 DRS in 618 innings).
Getting Duvall adds at least one above average OFer to our current crew of DH-worthy OF gloves (Yoshida, Verdugo & Duran). if we could just add Josh Harrison we’d potentially have a strong defensive INF at least..
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
136
The only issue with sending Pivetta in a Kim deal is that you're putting even more eggs in the Sale / Paxton basket. I'd be hesitant to trade a guy who's probably going to be good for 180 innings, with our pitching health concerns. If you make this deal, then it's for 24, not so much for 23.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
The only issue with sending Pivetta in a Kim deal is that you're putting even more eggs in the Sale / Paxton basket. I'd be hesitant to trade a guy who's probably going to be good for 180 innings, with our pitching health concerns. If you make this deal, then it's for 24, not so much for 23.
If we're going to compete in '23, I'd think the eggs should probably be in someone's basket besides Pivetta's. We've got six starters (Sale, Bello, Whitlock, Paxton, Kluber and Houck) who all project better than Nick this year, and five others with starter upside that it could greatly benefit future teams if we found innings for this year (Crawford, Winckowski, Mata, Murphy, Walter).

You're not going to QO Pivetta two years from now. He's a debatable non-tender candidate in his arb3 season in 2024 without significant improvement, and I don't see any projections who like him to improve. I'd say trade him now while we have the depth, and while he has two years of controllable league-average innings.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,122
Rogers Park
SSS, but Kim started 63 games in '21, 21 of them at 2B. I'm Guessing SD saw enough of him and feel confident enough in his defense to think he can make the adjustment.
The only reason Kim is even available is that the Padres already had like four shortstops on the roster before they signed Bogaerts, and after they traded CJ Abrams: Tatis, Jr., Kim, Cronenworth, Rosario. Hell, Machado's a pretty accomplished SS, too.

Kim has played positions other than SS because he was deferring first to Tatis, and then to CJ Abrams, who was then the centerpiece of the Soto deal.

Kim has some of the best statcast defensive numbers at SS (+9 in ~1350 innings), and, you know, years of playing SS at a high level in South Korea, a real country that actually exists.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,864
If we're going to compete in '23, I'd think the eggs should probably be in someone's basket besides Pivetta's. We've got six starters (Sale, Bello, Whitlock, Paxton, Kluber and Houck) who all project better than Nick this year, and five others with starter upside that it could greatly benefit future teams if we found innings for this year (Crawford, Winckowski, Mata, Murphy, Walter).

You're not going to QO Pivetta two years from now. He's a debatable non-tender candidate in his arb3 season in 2024 without significant improvement, and I don't see any projections who like him to improve. I'd say trade him now while we have the depth, and while he has two years of controllable league-average innings.
well no… there’s lots of evidence to suggest Pivetta will be better in ‘23. Less games against the ALE is the biggest.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The only reason Kim is even available is that the Padres already had like four shortstops on the roster before they signed Bogaerts, and after they traded CJ Abrams: Tatis, Jr., Kim, Cronenworth, Rosario. Hell, Machado's a pretty accomplished SS, too.

Kim has played positions other than SS because he was deferring first to Tatis, and then to CJ Abrams, who was then the centerpiece of the Soto deal.

Kim has some of the best statcast defensive numbers at SS (+9 in ~1350 innings), and, you know, years of playing SS at a high level in South Korea, a real country that actually exists.
Well aware of all of that and just out of curiosity, WTF is this?
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,458
If he’s replaced, I hope he’s a virtual guaranteed 180+ innings.
He could be replaced by 3 guys who pitch 60 innings each & that would be better if those innings are better innings.

Anyway, the AL East was pretty good, but not really crazy elite in run scoring.

#2 Yankees
#4 Blue Jays
(#9 Red Sox)
#20 Orioles
#21 Rays

The fact that he was awful against teams that regularly see him is problematic & doesn't speak to a likelihood of improvement as more people see him more.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,451
You're not going to QO Pivetta two years from now. He's a debatable non-tender candidate in his arb3 season in 2024 without significant improvement, and I don't see any projections who like him to improve. I'd say trade him now while we have the depth, and while he has two years of controllable league-average innings.
Pivetta has been worth $18m and $12m in free agent value the last 2 seasons, there is very little to no chance he's a non tender candidate in a year. Just look at what much older mediocre pitchers are getting on short term deals.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
well no… there’s lots of evidence to suggest Pivetta will be better in ‘23. Less games against the ALE is the biggest.
FWIW, I'm starting to take the less games against the ALE with a slight grain of salt as they will now be filling that part of that void with more games against the best teams that they would have seen less of or wouldn't have otherwise played.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
729
Melrose MA
The risk with making a qualifying offer to someone like Pivetta is he might accept it rather than decline and be worth a draft pick. 2 seasons from now I would much rather have one of the pitchers currently in AA or AAA pitching for minimum salary and spend that $20 M or so on a player other than Pivetta.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
636
New York, USA
Pivetta has been worth $18m and $12m in free agent value the last 2 seasons, there is very little to no chance he's a non tender candidate in a year. Just look at what much older mediocre pitchers are getting on short term deals.
How far off is Pivetta from Jameson Taillon? In 2022 they were similar players although Pivetta walked quite a bit more but offset it by more Ks. Pivetta is 1 year younger. Taillon just signed 4/$68m. Those guys have lots of value.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
Pivetta has been worth $18m and $12m in free agent value the last 2 seasons, there is very little to no chance he's a non tender candidate in a year. Just look at what much older mediocre pitchers are getting on short term deals.
I'm being slightly hyperbolic there. I see Pivetta as the SP version of Renfroe: a useful back-end player with an established ceiling, but the late arb years are costly enough that you could probably do better, either by acclimating a young pitcher to the role or paying a little more money for a premium one.

Which is preferable? 1) Pay Pivetta $10 million to put up a 4.50 FIP/110 ERA+ across 160 innings (below-average durability), 2) Pay a much better free agent pitcher $15-20 million with the reasonable hope that he'd be much better, or 3) Break in a young pitcher who projects much the same as Pivetta but with a lower floor, paying him pre-arb rates.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,563
Maine
The risk with making a qualifying offer to someone like Pivetta is he might accept it rather than decline and be worth a draft pick. 2 seasons from now I would much rather have one of the pitchers currently in AA or AAA pitching for minimum salary and spend that $20 M or so on a player other than Pivetta.
Seems like we're getting waaaay ahead of ourselves. No one is suggesting Pivetta should get a QO two years from now, and fortunately whatever team he's pitching for in 2024 will have two more years of data with which to make such a decision. I think all anyone has said is that he can still provide good value to the Red Sox in 2023 and 2024.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,451
Which is preferable? 1) Pay Pivetta $10 million to put up a 4.50 FIP/110 ERA+ across 160 innings (below-average durability), 2) Pay a much better free agent pitcher $15-20 million with the reasonable hope that he'd be much better, or 3) Break in a young pitcher who projects much the same as Pivetta but with a lower floor, paying him pre-arb rates.
A much better pitcher isn't signing a 1 year deal for 15-20m. And if they have enough young or much better pitchers by next year who they can project to be similar or better than Pivetta then they'd still tender him and trade him because he still has trade value.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,288
The idea that “you can probably do better” than Pivetta is more difficult than the reality though - the same was true of Renfroe. Think of how much they paid JBJ and will likely now pay Duvall and compare how much two years of Renfroe would have cost. Sometimes, you don’t need to overcomplicate things.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
A much better pitcher isn't signing a 1 year deal for 15-20m. And if they have enough young or much better pitchers by next year who they can project to be similar or better than Pivetta then they'd still tender him and trade him because he still has trade value.
How would they know if they have young pitchers better than Pivetta ready to go next year if Pivetta himself claims 180 innings' worth of subpar starts?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,451
How would they know if they have young pitchers better than Pivetta ready to go next year if Pivetta himself claims 180 innings' worth of subpar starts?
They'll have at least 2, possibly 3 young pitchers in the rotation this season along with Pivetta. They'll also have a better evaluation of what to expect from Sale in 2024 and possibly Kluber.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,458
They'll have at least 2, possibly 3 young pitchers in the rotation this season along with Pivetta. They'll also have a better evaluation of what to expect from Sale in 2024 and possibly Kluber.
At least 1 if Kluber/Sale/Paxton are healthy.

If everyone is healthy my preferred depth chart of starters is something like:

Bello
Sale
Whitlock
Paxton
Houck
Kluber
Pivetta

& if any of Murphy/Crawford/Walter/Mata are deemed ready, I'd slot them ahead of Pivetta, too. Probably not Winckowski unless he figured something major out.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
How would they know if they have young pitchers better than Pivetta ready to go next year if Pivetta himself claims 180 innings' worth of subpar starts?
IMO there's room for some of the young guys to get innings. As of yet they are unproven, so possibly Whitlock and/or Houck make that next step if either has a solid season in the rotation. It seems that at least one , if not both, will get the opportunity. So many here have little to no faith in Sale and Paxton, if they are correct someone's going to be elevated and given a shot. With Bello already on the big team and Seabold out of the picture Mata may get the same chance to prove himself that they got last season. Crawford's earned another shot as well.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,288
What’s the case for slotting Kutter Crawford, Chris Murphy, Brandon Walter, etc over Pivetta? This just feels like prospect humping.

Also think the “if everyone is healthy” is such a massive caveat.

If we get to a point where Kluber or Pivetta or whomever isn’t pitching well and the kids are; I’m sure that change can be made. But to push it now seems really risky.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,458
What’s the case for slotting Kutter Crawford, Chris Murphy, Brandon Walter, etc over Pivetta? This just feels like prospect humping.

Also think the “if everyone is healthy” is such a massive caveat.

If we get to a point where Kluber or Pivetta or whomever isn’t pitching well and the kids are; I’m sure that change can be made. But to push it now seems really risky.
I said "if they're ready", which would require a jump from their current levels, which is why i listed Pivetta 7th. But yeah, if they were deemed ready to provide league average pitching, I would rather they do it than Pivetta for ceiling/cost reasons.

But yeah, you'd have to have a good idea of the health of Sale/Paxton in terms of ability to start the season, plus confidence in at least 1 & preferably 2 of that group of 4 to be able to super confidently move on from Pivetta, but I would certainly be willing to listen to offers if someone offered something intriguing.

Also, there is a fallacy that just because Pivetta hasn't gotten hurt, he'll never get hurt. Seems unlikely to be a fact.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
There are another 1400 innings that they could pitch.
Not really, because those innings are earmarked for guys projected to be a lot better than Nick Pivetta.

I don't know, guys! Don't mean to belabor this but it's strange that so many consider Pivetta integral to the team. He's certainly a MLB starter but at this point he seems fungible, like a Jordan Lyles, Chris Archer, Kyle Gibson, Michael Wacha or Drew Smyly type typically available at 1/$10 or 2/$18. The value you'd have in trading him now is that another team might want to give up someone interesting for the right to pay that kind of guy only 2/$15M, and then you'd have more of an opportunity to evaluate your young arms at the major-league level.

Here's how Pivetta ranked among 140 MLB starters who threw 100+ IP last year:
ERA: 109/140
xERA: 113/140
FIP: 105/140
K%: 63/140
BB%: 122/140
HR/9: 109/140
Chase%: 118/140
vs. Barrel%: 115/140

I'd speculate too that Pivetta might be in for a rougher year without the shift, and without Trevor Story. The Sox shifted in 77 percent of Pivetta's PAs vs. left-handed batters. He gives up a lot of hard contact hit toward second base. I'm sure someone could dig deeper into this, but it could be relevant that Pivetta had a 3.85 FIP (.281 BABIP) before Story's injury (on July 12th) and a 5.20 FIP (.326 BABIP) after.

What’s the case for slotting Kutter Crawford, Chris Murphy, Brandon Walter, etc over Pivetta? This just feels like prospect humping.

Also think the “if everyone is healthy” is such a massive caveat.
The case is that Crawford and Walter currently both project to be better than Pivetta by ZIPS, and Crawford, Murphy, Walter, Mata and Winckowski all project to be better by Steamer, albeit in fewer innings. And getting one or more of them some starts at the major-league level gives us (and other teams) valuable information about how our starters can fare in future seasons.

If we get to a point where Kluber or Pivetta or whomever isn’t pitching well and the kids are; I’m sure that change can be made. But to push it now seems really risky.
What's so risky about it? We have six starters better than Pivetta right now, and several others already on the 40-man who may be able to put up his numbers. If you happen to make it to the playoffs, he's not in your rotation, and as of now he'd probably be the eighth man out of the bullpen.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,458
A lot of this stuff has been previously litigated in the Pivetta thread:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/nick-pivetta-bad-or-average.38345/

But this still represents my thoughts:

I've posted a # of posts about Pivetta over several different threads. I can't always be in the mood to reiterate all my issues with everything.

But here's a bullet point summary of how bad Pivetta was in '22...

* 2nd in MLB in BB & BB/9
* T10th in homers allowed
* T7th in wild pitches
* 3rd worst K/BB ratio among qualifying pitchers
* 3rd most steals allowed
* Most pitches per inning

& it's not like those volume stats are because he pitches a crazy # of innings - he was 28th in the league.

This is not the profile of a pitcher who will thrive with the new rules which will make base stealing easier, & the high hard hit % & low chase % #s are concerning.

I believe the Red Sox value walk rates for hitters & pitchers even more with the rule changes & that's why they're targeting players like Martin & Yoshida.

Additionally, his fastball is down from 94.8 in '21 to 93.4 in '22 & he's a glorified 3 pitch pitcher whose change-up is awful (opponents hit .529 against it this year).

& unlike the analysis I did on Joe Ross in the starting pitching thread, Pivetta doesn't really have opener/bulk reliever potential because he's pretty bad from the 1st time through the order:

1st time through: 4.41 ERA
2nd time through: 4.16 ERA
3rd time through: 5.56 ERA

To me he's the epitome of a JAG. He does not have the stuff to compete in the playoffs (although he did well in 3 appearances in '21...) & I don't need him running out there being fungible & mediocre for a lot of innings. If that's the best we have to offer on a regular basis, this roster remake isn't really working the way I would like (& i generally think it's going fine).

So if a Royals-esque team needs a guy to pitch innings, they should trade us something of some value for him & we should move on to players with higher upside.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,288
What's so risky about it? We have six starters better than Pivetta right now, and several others already on the 40-man who may be able to put up his numbers. If you happen to make it to the playoffs, he's not in your rotation, and as of now he'd probably be the eighth man out of the bullpen.
ZIPS and Steamer aren’t reality, though. They don’t appear to project any of the Sox pitchers to be particularly good this year, but if Crawford or Walter or Seaborg or whomever were actually thought of as major league starters, wouldn’t they be key pieces in trades as opposed to clinging to 40 man spots? Or if the team believed in them, why sign Kluber?

Among pitchers who throw a lot of innings, Pivetta isn’t great, but isn’t actually throwing those innings valuable (Zips does project him to throw the most innings on the team, fwiw). And hell, he was one of the key pitchers on the 21 team, no? So I don’t buy that he couldn’t be again.

I don’t think he’s a huge part of the team, but a guy who they can keep for two more years at relatively low cost is more appealing than inevitably signing another one year stopgap type.
 
Last edited:

adcasaletto

New Member
Dec 11, 2014
36

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,339
Why have we invited Duran back to Boston in these scenarios? We already have 5 people on the team capable of playing outfield that are better than him.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,563
Maine
Why have we invited Duran back to Boston in these scenarios? We already have 5 people on the team capable of playing outfield that are better than him.
I think at this stage, Duran is "invited" to Boston simply because of a lack of bodies otherwise. The current 40-man has 17 position players on it which includes Story but not Duvall. 13 of those 17 have to make the big league roster assuming no other changes. Duran is one of those 13 by default at the moment.

Fortunately, there's still time for that to change.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,390
RFsnyder is out of options but Duran is not, right? Seems like a non-issue.

Duran stays in Worcester unless/until an injury or is moved.