Red Sox Starting Pitching 2020

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
So, the Red Sox have quite a lot of money tied up in their starters, most of whom performed pretty terribly in 2019. What is our prognosis? Unfortunate perfect storm of a bunch of collective down years? Or, a foreshadowing of dark days to come?

Chris Sale : 5 year, $145 million contract starting in 2020 : Pretty forgettable performance for the season, with certainly a few highlights. Not having off-season surgery to address the inflammation. Will the early shut down and rest be enough to get him back to form?

David Price : His season wasn't all that terrible until early August, or so, before that wrist issue came up (and again in September). Similar question as for Sale. Do we expect a decent bounce back next year?

Nate Eovoldi : Like the others, had injury problems during the season (elbow). I didn't think his 4 year, $68 million contract before this season (now 3 years left) was too much of a gamble at the time. At only 29, you wouldn't think he'd be washed up at this point, but there seems to be a little less reason to be optimistic after this past season. Thoughts?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
First thing I thought of was if a 6 man rotation would actually work better for resting and repairing the damage done during starts to Eo, Sale and Price? That of course means they need to pick up 2 other starters.
Assuming no QO to Porcello means they already need one... .but likely a 6th starter also (please no more Brian Johnson!!!). They're in a tough spot for sure..... I'm not even sure how to wrap my head around this- especially in context of getting cost down to $208M, along with the JDM and Mookie looming issues. Poor Chaim Bloom.....
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Sale: Biggest question mark. The injuries are officially a trend, but they don't appear serious enough to jump to conclusions.
Price: Even in an injury-limited season he was above-average.
Eovaldi: Dealt with an issue, overcame it, kind of sucked in a discombobulated return but was apparently healthy.

All of them had a light-usage year after a somewhat heavy-usage 2018. Price especially pitched an extra 25 innings in the 2018 postseason. They all came back in February looking unprepared after the short offseason. On that basis alone you'd have to like their chances of rebounding some, if they have it in them, and I suspect they do. The toughest to predict is Eovaldi, of course, and personally I think having real SP depth is going to matter a lot so they don't have to thrust him into different roles like they did this year.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
To me, Price is the only one who is likely tradeable and who may offer significant salary relief. Sale's health is a huge red flag and it's also not a good look for attracting future marquee players if they try to dump his contract so soon after signing him to an extension. Trading Eovaldi isn't worth much consideration IMO, as they will likely have to eat some of his salary and the resulting payroll relief isn't really going to move the needle.

So, the real question is - presuming you can move David Price, how much of his salary can/should the Red Sox subsidize?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
So, the real question is - presuming you can move David Price, how much of his salary can/should the Red Sox subsidize?
None? He is not a distressed asset, and SP1-level guys are so scarce that I don't think the Sox are dealing from weakness. Maybe I'm wrong and the reality is that nobody is taking on the full cost, but an alternative is trading him for another salary that might currently suck but ends sooner.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,680
Maine
None? He is not a distressed asset, and SP1-level guys are so scarce that I don't think the Sox are dealing from weakness. Maybe I'm wrong and the reality is that nobody is taking on the full cost, but an alternative is trading him for another salary that might currently suck but ends sooner.
Agreed. You don't subsidize guys significantly unless you are desperate to unload them, such as in the case of a malcontent. That's not David Price. His only drawback is his health. If he's healthy, he performs. If he's healthy, you don't want to be paying him to perform at his typical level for someone else. And if he's not healthy, you're likely going to have to pay a prohibitively large portion of his salary for him to be on someone else's IL.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sale: Biggest question mark. The injuries are officially a trend, but they don't appear serious enough to jump to conclusions.
Price: Even in an injury-limited season he was above-average.
Eovaldi: Dealt with an issue, overcame it, kind of sucked in a discombobulated return but was apparently healthy.

All of them had a light-usage year after a somewhat heavy-usage 2018. Price especially pitched an extra 25 innings in the 2018 postseason. They all came back in February looking unprepared after the short offseason. On that basis alone you'd have to like their chances of rebounding some, if they have it in them, and I suspect they do. The toughest to predict is Eovaldi, of course, and personally I think having real SP depth is going to matter a lot so they don't have to thrust him into different roles like they did this year.
Isn't he really the easiest predict? He's never been all that good, and he's never been durable. I don't see much of a reason for either of those things to change much.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Isn't he really the easiest predict? He's never been all that good, and he's never been durable. I don't see much of a reason for either of those things to change much.
You mean Eovaldi? He's coming up on 1000 IP in the majors, it's not like he's made of glass. But for him to pay off his contract he does need to turn the tide a bit on his injury history and experience a prolonged period of reasonable health. His K/9 keeps improving, so he looks a lot like today's MLB starter. Projection is projection, I guess, for better or worse.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Is David Price still a SP1 guy? He only makes 3 mil less than Zack Grienke and the Dbacks had to pay a third of that to get some prospects. And Grienke has been much better than Price the last three years(really over their entire careers) while only coming with a two year commitment instead of three. Maybe we can give Price away to the Rangers or something but I cant imagine we get anything of significance back. Who else could possibly be interested in Price at 3/96? Bumgarner is younger and has been better as well, why wouldnt they just sign him? Or any of the other FA pithcers out there? 3/96 for a guy who hasnt thrown over 200 innings in three years sounds prohibitively expensive for a lot of teams.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
None? He is not a distressed asset, and SP1-level guys are so scarce that I don't think the Sox are dealing from weakness. Maybe I'm wrong and the reality is that nobody is taking on the full cost, but an alternative is trading him for another salary that might currently suck but ends sooner.
Price only pitched 107 innings this season and has wrist issues - as $32 million pitchers go, I would say he qualifies as at least a mildly distressed asset. Most of the local beat writers mention a likely need for the Sox to eat some of his salary when discussing him as a possible trade subject this winter.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Price only pitched 107 innings this season and has wrist issues - as $32 million pitchers go, I would say he qualifies as at least a mildly distressed asset. Most of the local beat writers mention a likely need for the Sox to eat some of his salary when discussing him as a possible trade subject this winter.
There's not one team in baseball that would sign David Price to even a one year deal at $32M. There's no way in hell that some GM thinks of him as a SP-1 pitcher. There's a chance he could be healthy and perform as one for a whole season.... but who would possibly gamble $32M on it? Either the Sox win because he's healthy all next season and performs like what he's being paid to be (and THEN we could have this discussion with some veritas to him being a SP-1 worth $32M) or they're looking stuck even longer with an oft-injured declining pitcher. Sox would need to eat 1/3 of his salary- or package him up with Chavis(?)- to get something even close to a top prospect in return. Same with Sale, same with Eovaldi. Their SP is a mess and they still need to sign or trade for two other pitchers.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
First thing I thought of was if a 6 man rotation would actually work better for resting and repairing the damage done during starts to Eo, Sale and Price? That of course means they need to pick up 2 other starters.
Assuming no QO to Porcello means they already need one... .but likely a 6th starter also (please no more Brian Johnson!!!). They're in a tough spot for sure..... I'm not even sure how to wrap my head around this- especially in context of getting cost down to $208M, along with the JDM and Mookie looming issues. Poor Chaim Bloom.....
I definitely don't want to re-litigate the idea of a six-man rotation. But, on the other hand, it's Tuesday morning in November and I'm bored.

Common wisdom has said six-man rotations don't make sense because you're effectively taking away innings from your better pitchers and putting them in the hands of lesser pitchers. In a world where Sale and Price can throw 200 innings each of quality ball, that definitely makes sense. But in a world where many of the members of the rotation have durability concerns, I can see how the idea of giving them a bit of space and not racking up too many innings would be appealing.

On the other hand, though, given how tough it is to find a serviceable 5th starter, the idea of finding someone (or a group of someones) who can reliably serve as a sixth starter feels damn difficult. Pitchers six through ten on last year's depth chart, as sorted on BB Reference by number of starts made, is super ugly. And our fifth starter (Eovaldi) only made 12 starts last year... I just have a hard time we'll be able to find two serviceable fifth-starter level guys that would make a six-man rotation work, and when injuries inevitably hit it'll be even harder.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
There's not one team in baseball that would sign David Price to even a one year deal at $32M. There's no way in hell that some GM thinks of him as a SP-1 pitcher. There's a chance he could be healthy and perform as one for a whole season.... but who would possibly gamble $32M on it? Either the Sox win because he's healthy all next season and performs like what he's being paid to be (and THEN we could have this discussion with some veritas to him being a SP-1 worth $32M) or they're looking stuck even longer with an oft-injured declining pitcher. Sox would need to eat 1/3 of his salary- or package him up with Chavis(?)- to get something even close to a top prospect in return. Same with Sale, same with Eovaldi. Their SP is a mess and they still need to sign or trade for two other pitchers.
I don’t know man. I’d bet David Price could top an offer of 1/$32m on the FA market. Probably by a substantial margin.

I’d say it’s accurate that his projected future value is close to what his contract is worth, so he has either mildly positive or mildly negative surplus value. But you’re acting like his contract is ~$70m underwater, which would imply we’d have to send someone Devers to take him off our hands.

I don’t think you actually believe that.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
There's not one team in baseball that would sign David Price to even a one year deal at $32M. There's no way in hell that some GM thinks of him as a SP-1 pitcher. There's a chance he could be healthy and perform as one for a whole season.... but who would possibly gamble $32M on it? Either the Sox win because he's healthy all next season and performs like what he's being paid to be (and THEN we could have this discussion with some veritas to him being a SP-1 worth $32M) or they're looking stuck even longer with an oft-injured declining pitcher. Sox would need to eat 1/3 of his salary- or package him up with Chavis(?)- to get something even close to a top prospect in return. Same with Sale, same with Eovaldi. Their SP is a mess and they still need to sign or trade for two other pitchers.
There are probably a dozen teams who wish they had someone of Price's stature anywhere on their roster. I would guess one or two would pay the full price for him, if his medicals checked out OK. As I said above, we are talking about a guy who was a two-win player with a 113 ERA+ in a supposed bad year, and a 4.4 bWAR guy a year earlier when healthy.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Which team has the cash to spend on price for the next three years? He hasn’t been healthy a full season the last three years. Ostensibly next season will be his best of the remaining three, which team would think he may help push them over the edge? If you can pay a pitcher in his mid 30s 30 mil plus, why not just go for cole, wheeler, Strasburg or bumgarner? Cole hamels has been about as valuable as price(overall better career numbers as well) why not just sign him to a short term deal?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,034
Oregon
Which team has the cash to spend on price for the next three years? He hasn’t been healthy a full season the last three years.
You could look at some of the teams who fail in the Cole/Strasburg market -- San Diego wants to spend, the Dodgers might be there, if the Nationals lose Strasburg, they might want a 1A to go with Scherzer while their young pitching develops.The Rangers and White Sox are on everyone's list of spenders this offseason.

There'll be a market
 

rhswanzey

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 17, 2017
111
Monmouth, ME
Sale, Price and Eovaldi are all underwater contracts until further notice. Expecting any team to take on these contracts without us eating half the money, is just not grounded in reality.

ERod is due an arbitration raise coming off his best MLB season. He’ll receive down ballot Cy votes. There’s a risk that he’s a true breakout #2 SP in the making; there’s a risk that he’ll be maddeningly inconsistent for the rest of his career, which is probably how we’d characterize him until this past summer.

He has two arb years remaining plus the potential to extend him pre-FA. If one year of someone as boring as Tanner Roark, at about the same salary, had positive value last offseason, what do you think two years of a much better pitcher with a much higher upside is worth?

If Sox absolutely need to clear payroll, I think ERod might be their most valuable trade chip. There aren’t enough Cole’s and Strasburg’s for everyone who wants one, and ERod will cost less than a third of either pitcher’s AAV.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
You could look at some of the teams who fail in the Cole/Strasburg market -- San Diego wants to spend, the Dodgers might be there, if the Nationals lose Strasburg, they might want a 1A to go with Scherzer while their young pitching develops.The Rangers and White Sox are on everyone's list of spenders this offseason.

There'll be a market
Losing out on a FA is one motivation, but also wanting date certainty rather than engaging in a Boras-style extended dance is another.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Which team has the cash to spend on price for the next three years? He hasn’t been healthy a full season the last three years. Ostensibly next season will be his best of the remaining three, which team would think he may help push them over the edge? If you can pay a pitcher in his mid 30s 30 mil plus, why not just go for cole, wheeler, Strasburg or bumgarner? Cole hamels has been about as valuable as price(overall better career numbers as well) why not just sign him to a short term deal?
If the Angels miss on Cole, I bet they’d consider swapping Justin Upton for Price. They have internal candidates to replace him, and factoring Upton’s sunk cost, for them it’d essentially be like signing Price to a 3/$29.2m contract.

Whether we’d have any use for three years of Justin Upton is another story, but if he’s healthy and hidden at DH, I could imagine him bouncing back to a .340-50 wOBA guy.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
If the Angels miss on Cole, I bet they’d consider swapping Justin Upton for Price. They have internal candidates to replace him, and factoring Upton’s sunk cost, for them it’d essentially be like signing Price to a 3/$29.2m contract.

Whether we’d have any use for three years of Justin Upton is another story, but if he’s healthy and hidden at DH, I could imagine him bouncing back to a .340-50 wOBA guy.
So if Upton is at DH, where does JDM play?
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
You could look at some of the teams who fail in the Cole/Strasburg market -- San Diego wants to spend, the Dodgers might be there, if the Nationals lose Strasburg, they might want a 1A to go with Scherzer while their young pitching develops.The Rangers and White Sox are on everyone's list of spenders this offseason.

There'll be a market
I mean the Nats already have a 1A to go with Scherzer in Patrick Corbin. If they somehow lose out on both Rendon and Stras, I would bet they would be looking to bolster their bullpen more than trading for a 34 year old SP with three more years on his contract. Price hasnt been a truly elite SP since 2015. I bet if you went to these team's fans and asked them what they would give up for David Price at 3/96 a lot of them would say "absolutely nothing". I dont think there are many Angels fans clamoring for Moreno to just throw money around, Gerrit Cole would be a clear upgrade for that rotation with Ohtani coming back. Plugging Price behind Ohtani for the next three years doesnt do a whole lot for their chances. And they really dont have a replacement for Upton(who, "when healthy", has been around a 4 WAR player the last few years). Jo Adell is their Calhoun replacement.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I bet if you went to these team's fans and asked them what they would give up for David Price at 3/96 a lot of them would say "absolutely nothing".
And they'd be right, because given Price's salary, age, and recent injury issues, his trade value is negative. The only way he gets traded is as part of a larger deal in which the Sox give up value (e.g. trading Mookie for a bit less than he's worth).
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
And they'd be right, because given Price's salary, age, and recent injury issues, his trade value is negative. The only way he gets traded is as part of a larger deal in which the Sox give up value (e.g. trading Mookie for a bit less than he's worth).
So see what we can get for Mookie, Price, and maybe JDM? Ask what the White Sox will give us for the three of em? Basically just Punto trade 2.0
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
i mean, if we have to get below the luxury tax we are going to need to trade at least one of those guys. I dont see the Red Sox being able to compete with some rebuilding team that has tons of cash and wants to make a big free agent splash and Im really not sure if Mookie Betts is going to be worth 35 mil+ when he is in his late 30s. This team has plenty of young stars to root for in Xander and Devers. If they trade Betts I would hope they would approach Devers with some sort of contract extension to try to get a few of his FA years
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
i mean, if we have to get below the luxury tax we are going to need to trade at least one of those guys. I dont see the Red Sox being able to compete with some rebuilding team that has tons of cash and wants to make a big free agent splash and Im really not sure if Mookie Betts is going to be worth 35 mil+ when he is in his late 30s. This team has plenty of young stars to root for in Xander and Devers. If they trade Betts I would hope they would approach Devers with some sort of contract extension to try to get a few of his FA years
I hear ya. But I don't agree with the idea that they have to get below the LT. That's Henry floating an idea to see if we will go along with it. We can say no. It's just money and the odd draft pick, which in baseball isn't that much.

Also, so far Mookie has been worth roughly $350mil in his career. I don't think you hold up a deal because at the end it might be an overpay in those years, when in his prime he paid off his contract several times over.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
From my perspective, it seems like the best course of action is to hope those guys rebound. They are under contract, so you can't get rid of them without eating significant salary (both due to uncertainty, and the fact that many teams will not pay $30 million for a starter - even if they were a guaranteed Cy Young winner). If you get rid of them, you still have to replace them with somebody - and that somebody costs resources as well.

So, if the Sox were to trade one of them for a bucket of baseballs and eat $15 million/year of their salary, and then go out and sign somebody for $15 million, is there that much of a chance that that $15 million/year pitcher is any better?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
From my perspective, it seems like the best course of action is to hope those guys rebound. They are under contract, so you can't get rid of them without eating significant salary (both due to uncertainty, and the fact that many teams will not pay $30 million for a starter - even if they were a guaranteed Cy Young winner). If you get rid of them, you still have to replace them with somebody - and that somebody costs resources as well.

So, if the Sox were to trade one of them for a bucket of baseballs and eat $15 million/year of their salary, and then go out and sign somebody for $15 million, is there that much of a chance that that $15 million/year pitcher is any better?
Totally agree. If teams won't pay for their upside (which as I suggested above, maybe they will, but if not) then the Sox should keep them and try to realize it for themselves. The only bad outcome is paying someone to enjoy borderline HOFer David Price's big rebound year.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I hear ya. But I don't agree with the idea that they have to get below the LT. That's Henry floating an idea to see if we will go along with it. We can say no.
Wow, we get a vote? When did this happen? I knew this ownership team was innovative, but letting the fans vote on personnel/payroll decisions is a step beyond anything I imagined!

Seriously, though -- I assume you mean "say no" by ceasing to follow the team, which would reduce the franchise's value over time if enough people do it. Not only do I think you're fooling yourself if you think this will really happen, I also think it's an overreaction on the merits. I might give up on the team if it ever got saddled with a Jeffrey Loria-type ownership where it seemed clear that they weren't even trying. But retrenching is not the same as not trying. We're entitled to demand that ownership make a serious, good faith effort to field a competitive team in a way that can be sustained over the long term. We're not entitled to demand that they continue indefinitely spending like drunken sailors because it makes us sad when they sober up.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Wow, we get a vote? When did this happen? I knew this ownership team was innovative, but letting the fans vote on personnel/payroll decisions is a step beyond anything I imagined!

Seriously, though -- I assume you mean "say no" by ceasing to follow the team, which would reduce the franchise's value over time if enough people do it. Not only do I think you're fooling yourself if you think this will really happen, I also think it's an overreaction on the merits. I might give up on the team if it ever got saddled with a Jeffrey Loria-type ownership where it seemed clear that they weren't even trying. But retrenching is not the same as not trying. We're entitled to demand that ownership make a serious, good faith effort to field a competitive team in a way that can be sustained over the long term. We're not entitled to demand that they continue indefinitely spending like drunken sailors because it makes us sad when they sober up.
Thanks for the sarcasm. I am pretty sure the Sox ownership keeps track of public opinion and doesn't simply do shit like trade away their most important player and just tune out how the fans feel. If you were paying attention to the sequence of events you would have noted how quickly Kennedy came out and backtracked on the original claim of Henry's that they would get under the LT. Do you think it's because Pete Abe shamed them out of it?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Thanks for the sarcasm. I am pretty sure the Sox ownership keeps track of public opinion and doesn't simply do shit like trade away their most important player and just tune out how the fans feel. If you were paying attention to the sequence of events you would have noted how quickly Kennedy came out and backtracked on the original claim of Henry's that they would get under the LT. Do you think it's because Pete Abe shamed them out of it?
I think it's more likely because they had a plan for how they would talk about this to the public and Henry kind of fat-fingered it.

Of course they pay attention to public opinion, but it's not going to stop them from doing what they need to do to keep themselves in a position to win long-term in a fiscally rational way. Nor should it.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I think it's more likely because they had a plan for how they would talk about this to the public and Henry kind of fat-fingered it.
Ha! Yes, probably something like that. In my opinion all that's happened so far is that the Sox said they wouldn't spend this year right before heading into a couple months of mostly talking to people's agents. They certainly aren't kicking off the hot stove league by saying "we plan to blow by all the LT thresholds this winter." They're just kicking off the offseason with a negotiating stance. What their actual plan is, we'll see, but Kennedy's watered down version sounds a bit more realistic than some of the reactions where people think the Sox are forced to start dumping all-star players.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Ha! Yes, probably something like that. In my opinion all that's happened so far is that the Sox said they wouldn't spend this year right before heading into a couple months of mostly talking to people's agents. They certainly aren't kicking off the hot stove league by saying "we plan to blow by all the LT thresholds this winter." They're just kicking off the offseason with a negotiating stance. What their actual plan is, we'll see, but Kennedy's watered down version sounds a bit more realistic than some of the reactions where people think the Sox are forced to start dumping all-star players.
Yes, but I don't think it's a question of "forced", I think it's a question of weighing all the factors and not being unduly constrained by the fact that some of those factors are higher-profile and carry a higher PR cost than others. If "dumping all-star players" is the smartest decision in terms of long-term viability, then that's the decision I want them to make.
 

rhswanzey

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 17, 2017
111
Monmouth, ME
From my perspective, it seems like the best course of action is to hope those guys rebound. They are under contract, so you can't get rid of them without eating significant salary (both due to uncertainty, and the fact that many teams will not pay $30 million for a starter - even if they were a guaranteed Cy Young winner). If you get rid of them, you still have to replace them with somebody - and that somebody costs resources as well.
This is exactly why I disagree with the above posters who think ERod is all but officially off limits on the winter market. You’ve got a ton of resources sunk into three rotation spots. If you can get a lesser quality arb2/arb3 sp arm plus assets, Erod’s spot is somewhere you can shed salary without sinking the season. Guys like Gio Gonzales and Wade Miley got almost no guaranteed money on 1yr FA contracts last season. And if the top 3 by AAV aren’t healthy, this entire winter is futile, because we’re just going to have 2018 EDIT: whenever that bad year was again, and again be totally stuck in those contracts, for better or worse.

I mean, we had nearly $100m in the rotation this season. Do you want half the pre-tax penalty payroll sunk in the rotation for multiple seasons into the future? I don’t like that as plan A.
 
Last edited:

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
358
This is exactly why I disagree with the above posters who think ERod is all but officially off limits on the winter market. You’ve got a ton of resources sunk into three rotation spots. If you can get a lesser quality arb2/arb3 sp arm plus assets, Erod’s spot is somewhere you can shed salary without sinking the season. Guys like Gio Gonzales and Wade Miley got almost no guaranteed money on 1yr FA contracts last season. And if the top 3 by AAV aren’t healthy, this entire winter is futile, because we’re just going to have 2018 again, and again be totally stuck in those contracts, for better or worse.

I mean, we had nearly $100m in the rotation this season. Do you want half the pre-tax penalty payroll sunk in the rotation for multiple seasons into the future? I don’t like that as plan A.
I'd love to have 2018 again.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
I definitely don't want to re-litigate the idea of a six-man rotation. But, on the other hand, it's Tuesday morning in November and I'm bored.

Common wisdom has said six-man rotations don't make sense because you're effectively taking away innings from your better pitchers and putting them in the hands of lesser pitchers. In a world where Sale and Price can throw 200 innings each of quality ball, that definitely makes sense. But in a world where many of the members of the rotation have durability concerns, I can see how the idea of giving them a bit of space and not racking up too many innings would be appealing.

On the other hand, though, given how tough it is to find a serviceable 5th starter, the idea of finding someone (or a group of someones) who can reliably serve as a sixth starter feels damn difficult. Pitchers six through ten on last year's depth chart, as sorted on BB Reference by number of starts made, is super ugly. And our fifth starter (Eovaldi) only made 12 starts last year... I just have a hard time we'll be able to find two serviceable fifth-starter level guys that would make a six-man rotation work, and when injuries inevitably hit it'll be even harder.
I totally get the drawbacks from a 6 man rotation... .yeah we've had this discussion plenty of times. What I'm wondering (not advocating necessarily) is: 1. The Sox need to replace Porcello to round out the 5 man rotation - Price, Sale, Eovaldi, Rodriguez and Pitcher X. 2. Considering the health of the first 3 mentioned above... they absolutely need to get a 6th guy and assume he will end up in the rotation at a certain point... .no more Brian Frickin' Johnson, please!!!!! 3. Can they get 2 starting pitchers at Porcello's cost from last season? 4. Would the health of Price, Sale and Eovaldi hold up over a season if they all had an extra days rest?
Now of course, on the last part is where the debate comes in- briefly rehashing; the dropoff in losing the performance of your top guys 1/6 time through a rotation and replacing it with the "lowest" guy in the rotation. But...if the Sox are able to get a full season of full strength Price, Eo and Sale at say 27 starts rather than 23 starts (assuming they actually LIKELY will be injured), or 32 starts (assuming a full season of health)... what is the benefit or drop off? Normally, one can't assume injury (or does in some small minor way) but the Sox have plenty of evidence that they NEED to with these 3. I don't know.... but I'm starting to lean towards a 6 man rotation with this crew... and then lastly... would this provide an inning of actual bullpen session-in-actual-game performance for the pitcher at the zenith of his spot in the rotation? Anyhow... mostly asking, and I've always been pretty adamant about the 5 man rotation for all the obvious reasons.... but I'm starting to lean towards the 6 man
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,680
Maine
I totally get the drawbacks from a 6 man rotation... .yeah we've had this discussion plenty of times. What I'm wondering (not advocating necessarily) is: 1. The Sox need to replace Porcello to round out the 5 man rotation - Price, Sale, Eovaldi, Rodriguez and Pitcher X. 2. Considering the health of the first 3 mentioned above... they absolutely need to get a 6th guy and assume he will end up in the rotation at a certain point... .no more Brian Frickin' Johnson, please!!!!! 3. Can they get 2 starting pitchers at Porcello's cost from last season? 4. Would the health of Price, Sale and Eovaldi hold up over a season if they all had an extra days rest?
Now of course, on the last part is where the debate comes in- briefly rehashing; the dropoff in losing the performance of your top guys 1/6 time through a rotation and replacing it with the "lowest" guy in the rotation. But...if the Sox are able to get a full season of full strength Price, Eo and Sale at say 27 starts rather than 23 starts (assuming they actually LIKELY will be injured), or 32 starts (assuming a full season of health)... what is the benefit or drop off? Normally, one can't assume injury (or does in some small minor way) but the Sox have plenty of evidence that they NEED to with these 3. I don't know.... but I'm starting to lean towards a 6 man rotation with this crew... and then lastly... would this provide an inning of actual bullpen session-in-actual-game performance for the pitcher at the zenith of his spot in the rotation? Anyhow... mostly asking, and I've always been pretty adamant about the 5 man rotation for all the obvious reasons.... but I'm starting to lean towards the 6 man
They absolutely need to replace Porcello with two starters, but not for the purposes of a six man rotation. They need at least six starters because someone is going to go down for some period throughout the season. They need six starters to fill five spots. Hell, they realistically need seven or eight starters for five spots, though #7 and #8 are more likely to be shuttle guys like Velazquez or Reyes or someone else of that ilk.

If 2019 was indicative of anything, it's that you can't enter the season with only five potential starters. They were banking on Johnson being healthy and better, and they were banking on Wright being healthy and, you know, not suspended. Both guys started the year unavailable so when Eovaldi went down, they had to take the bullpen/opener approach, which eventually wore down the bullpen overall. And left them well and truly fucked when Sale spent time on the IL, and then Price spent time on the IL. A lot of the success of 2018 hinged on guys like Johnson and Velazquez filling in competently while ERod was on the IL, and when Sale had his issues in the second half. They need to recapture that depth if they want to succeed in 2020.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
I would not be surprised if they strayed conventional rotation model in favor of some openers and bulk guys.

For example, one of the rotation slots could be an inning of Brasier and four or so innings of Robbie Erlin. That would probably be as effective as signing Keuchel, and 1/10th the cost.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I would not be surprised if they strayed conventional rotation model in favor of some openers and bulk guys.

For example, one of the rotation slots could be an inning of Brasier and four or so innings of Robbie Erlin. That would probably be as effective as signing Keuchel, and 1/10th the cost.
I don't disagree that they might very well have some bullpen games. I do disagree that Robbie Erlin would be as effective as a batting tee, unless the Sox move their games to Petco.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is exactly why I disagree with the above posters who think ERod is all but officially off limits on the winter market. You’ve got a ton of resources sunk into three rotation spots. If you can get a lesser quality arb2/arb3 sp arm plus assets, Erod’s spot is somewhere you can shed salary without sinking the season. Guys like Gio Gonzales and Wade Miley got almost no guaranteed money on 1yr FA contracts last season. And if the top 3 by AAV aren’t healthy, this entire winter is futile, because we’re just going to have 2018 again, and again be totally stuck in those contracts, for better or worse.
MLBTR is projecting Edro's arb salary at $9.5M. Steamer is projecting his WAR at 2.8. Who could we get for significantly less money who would be at least an even bet to produce even half as much value? I mean, for the luvva Pete, MLBTR is predicting 1/$11M for Rick Porcello, and 1/$6M deals for Ivan Nova and Michael Wacha. You really want to save $3M by exchanging Rodriguez for Nova?

It's not simply about reducing salary, it's about reducing as much salary as you can while reducing projected win totals as little as you can. Edro is just not a good trim candidate in that regard.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
I don't disagree that they might very well have some bullpen games. I do disagree that Robbie Erlin would be as effective as a batting tee, unless the Sox move their games to Petco.
So many of these guys are a pitch mix tweak or two away from success — we can’t really see stuff like that here.

Erlin is not far off from Jalen Beeks. He’s also nothing special and might be bad here. I noted him because he had an improved curveball and was pretty unlucky overall, and had inflated numbers from one Coors Field disaster. He’s also young and cheap, so he seems like a better target than someone like Nova, mentioned above.

I do think they’ll sign or trade for someone who’s specialty is one through the order. Pomeranz’s Milwaukee breakout showed how undervalued those guys are. There’s a bunch of pitchers out there who’ve failed as traditional starters but don’t fit the mold of late-inning guys.
 

GaryPeters71

New Member
Jul 29, 2005
168
North Easton, Mass.
From ESPN (paid subscriber content):

Who is one deep sleeper starting pitcher you think could be a bargain this winter?

Olney: Rich Hill, who was good in the 13 starts he made, posting a 2.45 ERA. And I'd bet the family farm that he will wind up with the Red Sox. He's 39 and so isn't in position to get a lucrative long-term deal, and grew up just outside of Boston, where he lives in the offseason. The Red Sox need inexpensive rotation depth given the questions that hover over Chris Sale, David Price and Nathan Eovaldi, and in a year in which the Red Sox are trying to reduce payroll, Hill and the Red Sox could fit each other.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Because he is coming off of another injury.

He hasn't made more than 25 starts in a season since 2007 ( so really from 2015 to 2019) and only made more than 25 relief appearances once (2013)

He has been highly unreliable his entire career
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Hill makes a lot of sense. Pin him to Hembree or Brasier as an opener and that’s a cheap QS more often than not.