Should the Red Sox go full push for next year?

[mauf]

Also, looking at those data, it's clear that the 2014 Sox' problems lay more on the run scoring than the run prevention side of the ledger (which, perhaps, should have been obvious). I agree with the CW that the Sox need to acquire two SPs this winter, but I don't agree that both of them need to be elite, or even near-elite.

 

[mauf]

Anyone whose expectations are for the Sox to sign two top-tier free agent starters this offseason is bound to be disappointed.  At best, they will sign one this year - Lester or more likely Shields.  Scherzer has made no bones about going for top dollar so I doubt they seriously chase him.  The second starter they acquire will be a lesser guy, giving a 2015 rotation of:
 
1. Shields/Lester
2. Buchholz
3. FA mid-tier signee
4. Kelly
5. Webster/De La Rosa/etc.
 
My $0.02.

 
Replace "mid-tier signee" with someone acquired by trade and I agree.
 
As someone said above, you try to land this year's Doug Fister, but you understand going in that the guy you acquire is much more likely to be league-average than to replicate Fister's 2014 performance. (Indeed, I think the Nats would have been quite happy 6 months ago if you told them Fister would pitch 190 innings with a 100 ERA+ this year.)

 

[ivanvamp]

 
No, this is utter nonsense.  They have assets right now and they should use them before their value tanks.  Unless you think they plan to go out and commit $300m+ to two front end starting pitchers, keeping all of these prospects makes zero sense.  Instead, what if they traded for Latos, whose cost would still be fairly reasonable, and signed Shields.  So now the rotation is Shields/Latos/Buchholz/Kelly/RDLR, instead of your proposed rotation of FA/Buchholz/Kelly/RDLR/Webster.  If you think that rotation can be relied upon to compete for a division I don't really know what to tell you.
 
The key, as has been mentioned already, is to identify the guys they should keep and the guys they think are currently overvalued.  Keep the former, trade the latter for established players, and use a combination of player development and financial resources to build another championship-caliber team.

 
You don't have to trade them for established major leaguers though.  You could trade, say, Ranaudo, for two or three low-level, but high upside, prospects to a team that needs a young, cost-controlled SP on the cusp of breaking into the majors.  If they have logjam of MLB-ready prospects, then "trading down" for more future prospects might be a useful thing to do as well.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
You don't have to trade them for established major leaguers though.  You could trade, say, Ranaudo, for two or three low-level, but high upside, prospects to a team that needs a young, cost-controlled SP on the cusp of breaking into the majors.  If they have logjam of MLB-ready prospects, then "trading down" for more future prospects might be a useful thing to do as well.

 
Except that, as JimD said, they're not going to replace both Lester and Lackey with high priced FAs.  So unless you agree with Ras' plan to go with an incredibly risky and potential mediocre at best rotation, they need to acquire a second starter.  The obvious solution is to use some of their assets to do so.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Except that, as JimD said, they're not going to replace both Lester and Lackey with high priced FAs.  So unless you agree with Ras' plan to go with an incredibly risky and potential mediocre at best rotation, they need to acquire a second starter.  The obvious solution is to use some of their assets to do so.

 
They have the money to spend, as I've posted elsewhere.  I think they should get both Lester and Shields.  They can afford it.
 
But I was talking more just as a general principle.  If there's a logjam of MLB-ready prospects, and there isn't an acceptable trade partner for MLB talent, then trade "down" to get more prospects a little further away.  Keep the pipeline stocked.

 

[mauf]

I get this idea, in theory, but the league has shifted to being more pitching based at this point. Generally speaking, teams need offense more than pitching. The MLB era this year was 3.86.

Folks here seem to like Joe Kelly, for example. He threw ~100 innings at a 4.21 ERA. There were 105 pitchers in the league who threw 100+ innings at a 4.21 ERA or better.

A guy who can come in and give you a 4.50 ERA for league minimum is no longer that rare of a commodity.

Most of the assets the team seems willing to give up are these depth starters. What teams need guys like that, and how many are willing to give up what the Sox need...front line starters? I have trouble seeing how the team gives up 2 #5's for a #2.

 
I agree. The guys that will fetch significant value in trade are Cecchini, Marrero, and JBJ, plus perhaps a Cespedes rental. (And also Betts, X, Owens and Swihart, but I assume those guys aren't moving unless there's a chance to trade for a cost-controlled franchise player, which I don't anticipate.)

 

[Plympton91]

 
 

AL Team SIERA for SPs

Indians	3.34
Yankees	3.53
Rays	3.57
A's	3.68
Tigers	3.71
Mariners	3.73
Angels	3.86
Blue Jays	3.98
Astros	4.03
White Sox	4.05
Royals	4.08
Red Sox	4.11
Orioles	4.15
Twins	4.16
Rangers	4.38

When you throw in 5th starters and fill-in starters the average ERA goes up? Who would have thought?

I'm not sure how using a hypothetical statistic that includes all starters on those teams negates the point about what actually happened on the field among the 4 starters that will be making playoff starts. Or were you reinforcing my point by showing that even under that hypothetical and more inclusive construct the current Red Sox project to be the fourth worst starting staff in the AL (edit: and, as someone else pointed out, only ranking that high on the strength of 3 pitchers who are no longer here)?

 

[rodderick]

When you throw in 5th starters and fill-in starters the average ERA goes up? Who would have thought?

I'm not sure how using a hypothetical statistic that includes all starters on those teams negates the point about what actually happened on the field among the 4 starters that will be making playoff starts. Or were you reinforcing my point by showing that even under that hypothetical and more inclusive construct the current Red Sox project to be the fourth worst starting staff in the AL (edit: and, as someone else pointed out, only ranking that high on the strength of 3 pitchers who are no longer here)?

 
Guess it's a good thing the current Red Sox won't be the 2015 Red Sox, then. Can we wait until next year's roster is put together before we start sounding the horns of doom?

 

[E5 Yaz]

I know someone brought this up earlier and it was shot down quickly but, just to stoke the embers, Buster Olney has a column up on ESPN (insider only) that suggests Oakland might have to deal Josh Donaldson.

 

[mauf]

When you throw in 5th starters and fill-in starters the average ERA goes up? Who would have thought?

I'm not sure how using a hypothetical statistic that includes all starters on those teams negates the point about what actually happened on the field among the 4 starters that will be making playoff starts. Or were you reinforcing my point by showing that even under that hypothetical and more inclusive construct the current Red Sox project to be the fourth worst starting staff in the AL (edit: and, as someone else pointed out, only ranking that high on the strength of 3 pitchers who are no longer here)?

My point was to look at the numbers and see if you were on to something in terms of roster construction in the post-PED era.

As it turns out, the top three teams in starters' SIERA missed the playoffs, while two of the bottom five made it. Team offense was a much better predictor -- three of the top four teams in wOBA made the playoffs; none of the bottom five did. Surprisingly, the most predictive stat was defense -- four of the top five teams in UZR made the playoffs (the fifth was the Red Sox). But each category had at least one playoff team in the bottom half, suggesting there are still lots of ways to construct a good team.

Also, if you look at the SIERA numbers, only the Indians' starters were below 3.5 as a group; the best mark among playoff teams is the A's at 3.68, and they acquired three-fifths of their rotation at the trade deadline. Teams that have four SPs with an ERA of 3.5 or better got lucky; planning to build such a rotation is tantamount to planning to fail.

The Sox obviously need to add a couple of competent SPs; no one (besides Ras) thinks they should stand pat. I believe, however, that they would be wise to focus the bulk of their efforts on upgrading the offense. Signing Lester and Shields and hoping to cobble together a competent offense with the players currently on hand seems like a poor strategy for next year, even leaving aside the effect those two contracts would have on the team's ability to compete in the latter part of this decade.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Guess it's a good thing the current Red Sox won't be the 2015 Red Sox, then. Can we wait until next year's roster is put together before we start sounding the horns of doom?

I completely agree; however, my initial post was in response to someone who suggested the Red Sox would be perfectly fine even if they failed to pick up any new pitchers and went into next season with the rotation that finished this season.

My point was to look at the numbers and see if you were on to something in terms of roster construction in the post-PED era.

As it turns out, the top three teams in starters' SIERA missed the playoffs, while two of the bottom five made it. Team offense was a much better predictor -- three of the top four teams in wOBA made the playoffs; none of the bottom five did. Surprisingly, the most predictive stat was defense -- four of the top five teams in UZR made the playoffs (the fifth was the Red Sox). But each category had at least one playoff team in the bottom half, suggesting there are still lots of ways to construct a good team.

Also, if you look at the SIERA numbers, only the Indians' starters were below 3.5 as a group; the best mark among playoff teams is the A's at 3.68, and they acquired three-fifths of their rotation at the trade deadline. Teams that have four SPs with an ERA of 3.5 or better got lucky; planning to build such a rotation is tantamount to planning to fail.

I wasn't really trying to make an overall point about roster construction, just about the quality of the pitching staff relative to what the correct baseline should be in this era of reduced offense. As Rudy is demonstrating very effectively, the current pitching staff sucks, and it is likely to continue to suck as a group unless, as you and most others concede, they retool it. I think RDLR, Kelly, and Webster could improve, but RDLR and Kelly need to improve by 3/4 of a run to be quality #3 starters, and Webster by more than that and that seems like a tall order. I'd rather bank on 1 of Kelly or RDLR improving by only 1/4 to 1/2 of a run or Webster breaking out to be quality #4s, and then the other one slotting as a #5 again. Plus, don't forget about a bullpen whose current "ace" is either Mujica or Tazawa. Yuk.

The Sox obviously need to add a couple of competent SPs; no one (besides Ras) thinks they should stand pat. I believe, however, that they would be wise to focus the bulk of their efforts on upgrading the offense. Signing Lester and Shields and hoping to cobble together a competent offense with the players currently on hand seems like a poor strategy for next year, even leaving aside the effect those two contracts would have on the team's ability to compete in the latter part of this decade.

It seems to me that a post-surgery bounceback by one of Pedroia or Napoli, plus a full season of Cespedes and Betts, with expected improvement from Bogaerts and catcher (please do not resign Ross), the near impossibility of getting worse production out of CF, and the improvement that would come from a competent mid-priced 3Bman -- e.g. Lowrie -- would be fine. And that rules out contributions from Victorino and Craig, which I am viewing as completely gravy.

 

[Rasputin]

 
No, this is utter nonsense.  They have assets right now and they should use them before their value tanks.  Unless you think they plan to go out and commit $300m+ to two front end starting pitchers, keeping all of these prospects makes zero sense.  Instead, what if they traded for Latos, whose cost would still be fairly reasonable, and signed Shields.  So now the rotation is Shields/Latos/Buchholz/Kelly/RDLR, instead of your proposed rotation of FA/Buchholz/Kelly/RDLR/Webster.  If you think that rotation can be relied upon to compete for a division I don't really know what to tell you.
 
The key, as has been mentioned already, is to identify the guys they should keep and the guys they think are currently overvalued.  Keep the former, trade the latter for established players, and use a combination of player development and financial resources to build another championship-caliber team.

 
There is so much wrong with this, I literally don't know where to start.
 
1) You're joining a general comment on how to view prospects to the specific situation in which the Sox find themselves now. That's ungood.
 
2) Ignoring the specific $300 million figure, I have no problem with the Sox going out and signing two free agent starting pitchers for relatively high salaries. I've been saying for a month or more that my preferred flavors are Lester and Shields.
 
3) If you'd read what I actually wrote, you would know if I think a FA/Buchholz/RDLR/Webster/Kelly rotation can be relied upon to win a division.
 
4) You don't divide prospects into those who are appropriately valued and those who are overvalued so you can keep the former and trade the latter. The goal is not to get as much value as possible out of every single prospect, but to win the world series as many times as possible before we die.
 
When you look at a prospect and get an idea of what that prospect might become, you have to understand that there's a chance he's not going to be that. I know you know this, but it's important to state for the follow up which is that any time a prospect works out, you've gotten lucky. This isn't true in the sense that none of the work put in by the scouts, coaches, and players had a damn thing to do with it, or in any other sense than that a prospect who works out has outperformed expectation and a prospect who bombs has underperformed expectation.
 
We have a plethora of pitching prospects. Some of them are going to work out. Some of them are not. We don't know which. Holding on to them all is not wasting the ones who don't work out. That's the price you're paying for the extra value you're getting from the ones that do work out.
 
5) Applying that to the position in which the Sox find themselves, which is one where they have money, prospects, and three significant players they want to acquire, it's really pretty simple. Buying an asset keeps more talent in the organization than trading for one. If you can afford to buy it--and the Sox can--then that has to be the first option explored. The Sox should have a real offer ready for Lester on the day he hits free agency. Hell, the e-mail should be pre programmed to go out at one minute past midnight and the follow up phone call should be made at ass o'clock in the morning.
 
We need two starters and a third baseman. We shouldn't even think about trading for someone until we've tried to sign someone.

 

[Rasputin]

 
This highlights one of the Sox' big offseason challenges -- they need to replace two-thirds of a season worth of Lester and Lackey just to get back to the 74-win team they were on paper (BP third-order wins) this season.

 
Because the offense hasn't improved at all?
 
 

The starters they have under contract combined for a 4.83 ERA, 1.0 HR/9, 3.4 BB/9, 6.5 K/9. That's terrible.

 
That 4.83 ERA includes a 5.34 ERA from a guy who had an ERA of 1.74 the year before, not to mention the 9th through 19th games of Allen Webster's career where, I dunno, there might be some growing pains involved. 

 

[jscola85]

Rubby is not that far off from a #3 starter.  In the AL, there were 48 starters who threw at least 140 innings, roughly 3 starters per team.  The median xFIP for those starters was 3.82.
 
Is it really that hard to believe that Rubby could improve on his 2014 performance to post a 3.80 xFIP?
 
It's pretty clear to everyone that a #1 and likely #2 are needed to compete next year.  But there are plenty of good internal options for this team to fill #3-5 if a high-3's xFIP is the target.  Even in Buchholz's awful year this season, his xFIP was 4.04.  Joe Kelly's consistently been at ~4.20 xFIP, but his stuff is good enough to suggest he could take the right steps forward to shave half a run off that.  Then you've got a whole bunch of other interesting arms like Barnes, Webster, Wright, Owens, Rodriguez, Escobar, Johnson, etc.  You can't rely on any of them for the rotation but they could easily step up next year and produce at a sub-4 xFIP.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 

2) Ignoring the specific $300 million figure, I have no problem with the Sox going out and signing two free agent starting pitchers for relatively high salaries. I've been saying for a month or more that my preferred flavors are Lester and Shields.
 

 
It doesn't matter what you think.  I don't see any way that the Sox give out big contracts to two pitchers over 30 when they wouldn't even extend Lester when they had the chance.  Most people seem to agree with this.  If your premise is based on the Sox getting two of Lester, Shields and Scherzer then I think any discussion pretty much ends right there.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
It doesn't matter what you think.  I don't see any way that the Sox give out big contracts to two pitchers over 30 when they wouldn't even extend Lester when they had the chance.  Most people seem to agree with this.  If your premise is based on the Sox getting two of Lester, Shields and Scherzer then I think any discussion pretty much ends right there.

Of course, this assumes that the negotiations between Lester and the red sox failed because of disagreements with respect to salary, and not because the red sox/Lester wanted to hold off to see if they should sell by the deadline, since he was going to be an FA anyways by the end of the year. The Phillies did a similar thing with Cliff lee after the 2009 season and then resigned him in 2011.
EDIT: Added that Lee was traded in the 2009 offseason for specificity.
 

 

[glennhoffmania]

Ok, ignore the Lester in-season stuff.  How likely are the Sox to sign two big name pitchers this offseason?

 

[EricFeczko]

Ok, ignore the Lester in-season stuff.  How likely are the Sox to sign two big name pitchers this offseason?

I have no idea. If you want a guess, I'd say about 34.76 percent chance they sign two big name pitchers, 23.63 percent chance they sign one, and a 31.62 percent chance they sign one and trade for another. 
Regardless, I think signing two top-tier pitchers this offseason would go a long way towards putting the red sox back in contention; isn't this discussion about what the red sox should do and not what the red sox will do?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

They'll end up with Scherzer and Cueto.  Weeeeee!!!!!!

 

[glennhoffmania]

I have no idea. If you want a guess, I'd say about 34.76 percent chance they sign two big name pitchers, 23.63 percent chance they sign one, and a 31.62 percent chance they sign one and trade for another. 
Regardless, I think signing two top-tier pitchers this offseason would go a long way towards putting the red sox back in contention; isn't this discussion about what the red sox should do and not what the red sox will do?

 
Sure, but I'm trying to be realistic.  Given what we think we know about their philosophy regarding signing long-term deals with players over 30, I'd bet that the odds of them signing two of Lester, Scherzer and Shields would be very low.  Whether they should do so is a separate question.  If the price tag for Lester and Scherzer ends up being around 7/175 and the price for Shields ends up being around 5/110, I think that a lot of people would say that what they should do is sign none of them.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
Sure, but I'm trying to be realistic.  Given what we think we know about their philosophy regarding signing long-term deals with players over 30, I'd bet that the odds of them signing two of Lester, Scherzer and Shields would be very low.  Whether they should do so is a separate question.  If the price tag for Lester and Scherzer ends up being around 7/175 and the price for Shields ends up being around 5/110, I think that a lot of people would say that what they should do is sign none of them.

 
Well, that previously stated philosophy seems to be not set in stone. Lucky was saying the other day (sorry - no link) that is was more of a guiding principal than a set-in-stone policy. In other words, they would prefer not to give Jon Lester a 140/7 contract but will if they have to.
 
And they have to.

 

[CaskNFappin]

If Scherzer and Lester sign elsewhere it's a punt. We have nothing but guys you'd count on for SP4 or below. Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart are the only way out of the reality, unless you are a GM who loves bad headlines. Amaro is the worst of them, but I can assure you that none of them want to lose their job for taking on our mediocre also-rans.

 

[snowmanny]

I have no idea. If you want a guess, I'd say about 34.76 percent chance they sign two big name
pitchers, 23.63 percent chance they sign one, and a 31.62 percent chance they sign one and trade for another. 

Regardless, I think signing two top-tier pitchers this offseason would go a long way towards
putting the red sox back in contention; isn't this discussion about what the red sox should do and not what the red sox will do?

So there's a 0.02% chance they don't sign any of Scherzer/Lester/Shields? I actually think the most likely option is that they sign none of them.

They SHOULD have signed Lester in March,
before he went to auction. Now there's a very
strong chance the Yankees blow away either Lester or Scherzer with an offer right out of the gate and take one off the table immediately. (It wouldn't be that shocking if the Yankees signed both. It also wouldn't be that shocking if they made substantial offers to both and said whoever says yes first gets signed; that was their strategy last year).

Henry has been very clear that he already regards long-term contracts to 30+ year-old
pitchers as bad business. I can't imagine he's going to consent to TWO deals that he will
regard as vast overpayments. Maybe - maybe- one.

 

[snowmanny]

Actually I think they should go for it in 2015. Do you think the Cardinals would trade Lackey for Kelly and Craig?

 

[EricFeczko]

So there's a 0.02% chance they don't sign any of Scherzer/Lester/Shields? I actually think the most likely option is that they sign none of them.

They SHOULD have signed Lester in March,
before he went to auction. Now there's a very
strong chance the Yankees blow away either Lester or Scherzer with an offer right out of the gate and take one off the table immediately. (It wouldn't be that shocking if the Yankees signed both. It also wouldn't be that shocking if they made substantial offers to both and said whoever says yes first gets signed; that was their strategy last year).

Henry has been very clear that he already regards long-term contracts to 30+ year-old
pitchers as bad business. I can't imagine he's going to consent to TWO deals that he will
regard as vast overpayments. Maybe - maybe- one.

There are so many assertions here that fly against what is known; I have no idea where you are coming from here.

I didn't say Lester/scherzer/shields. There are a plethora of "big-name" pitchers on the FA market this offseason, Kuroda and McCarthy are two that are projected to be ~3 WAR pitchers next season. Cueto has a one year option and can be traded for. Floyd, Liriano, and Lewis are decent bets to post 3 WAR next season. McCarthy can probably be had at a discount because he was extremely unlucky this year; Kuroda could be had on a short contract. This is a buyers market for pitching; precisely the type of market the red sox should be investing in.

Once again, someone is making the assumption that the red sox/Lester negotations failed due to a breakdown in contract offers and not because the red sox/Lester wanted to see how the season turned out. Either assumption has little support except for media leaks that simply shouldn't be trusted, ever. Lester will probably cost a bit more now than previously; if he signs for a 7/175, well, there are plenty of other pitchers on the FA market or are available by trade.

How is it a strong chance that the Yankees make big splashes in FA pitching this year when they fielded a top-5 starting rotation this year? They did so last year and don't have nearly as much cash to spend this offseason as other teams. The Yankees have about 169 million in contract obligations next year. Assuming raises for arbitration probably puts them closer to 185, maybe 180 if they're lucky, add in the 5-10 million needed for flexibility during the season and they've got, at best, 35 million to spend. Furthermore, they need a lot right now: SS, 2B, a boatload of RPs. If I'm a betting man, the Yankees go after position players to re-stock a team that was marginally better offensively (92 wRC+) than the red sox (90 wRC+) this year.

Best case, they shop around bargain bins and spend about 15-20 million to fill the gaps in their 25-man roster.  This leaves them with, maybe, 15-20 million, which is enough to sign one SP; and not on a 7/175 or 5/110 deal. As I'm typing this, I realize that its probably more likely the Yankees resign McCarthy and kuroda, because tanaka is poised to return in 2016 (I'm assuming that Yankees/tanaka won't do the stupid thing and let him continue to injure his arm by pitching; I hope they do, because they'll create another albatross by doing so) and pineda may break out next year. McCarthy/Kuroda would cost about 20 million, so they can sign Ramirez to a big deal.
 

 

[Plympton91]

In what universe do the Yankeees have a budget of only $220 million? How much did the Dodgers spend this year? Now add 25% to that and I might consider it the Yankees ceiling.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

In what universe do the Yankeees have a budget of only $220 million? How much did the Dodgers spend this year? Now add 25% to that and I might consider it the Yankees ceiling.

In the same universe where they spent 197 million this season and have been at or below 209 in three of the last four? It's not an absurd suggestion that they may not be willing to go higher then 220 million for 2015. There is a difference between how much they can afford and how much they are willing to spend. The Red Sox can afford a lot more than the luxury tax threshold but there is no reason to assume they will ever go significantly past it.

 

[67WasBest]

In the same universe where they spent 197 million this season and have been at or below 209 in three of the last four? It's not an absurd suggestion that they may not be willing to go higher then 220 million for 2015. There is a difference between how much they can afford and how much they are willing to spend. The Red Sox can afford a lot more than the luxury tax threshold but there is no reason to assume they will ever go significantly past it.

I believe the Sox will exceed the number only one year at a time.  If for example they were to exceed in 2015, they would do so only with the knowledge they could and would remain under in 2016.  By operating in this manner they would assure thier annual revenue sharing disbursement.
 
It's this same revenue sharing model that's impacting 2016 Yankee finances.  Starting in 2016, the Yankees will no longer get most of their LT payments rebated in the revenue sharing model.  Starting in 2016, those funds ($40M) will be dispersed to the other teams that remain below the LT level.  If they somehow get below $189M in 2015, they will receive their funds.

 

[lxt]

Just for kicks, here's AL team wOBA and UZR.
 
The lessons, at least for 2014, appear to be (1) hitting is more closely correlated with team success than pitching, which surprises me; (2) defense is more highly correlated with team success than you would expect, which might suggest it's correlated with a well-run franchise overall; (3) the difference between a good team and an OK team has a lot to do with random variance; and (4) not surprisningly, it's hard to win when you are execrable at either hitting or pitching, or average or worse at both.

Well stated. Interesting how reality seems to argue in the face of solid statistical analysis. That being said, there is a lot of potential on the Sox, however; the key word is potential.
 
I think Cespedes, Betts, Castillo, Victorino & Bradley give the Sox a solid OF. I'm not sure what to do with Craig. Either Boston was too much for him, he had a terrible time getting over the ankle or he was in one of the worst slumps I've seen in a long time. I think Craig may be better off finding a new home. Not sure what to do with Nava. I like the guy but what do you do with him?
 
Napoli played hurt a lot. He's tough but it still effected him and his abilities to hit. It was not until the Sox added Cespedes that Ortiz had the protection needed to have pitchers, pitch him straight up. Pedroia is our Jeter and any talk of trading him is just bat-shit crazy. Bogaerts looked good when playing SS and terrible when at 3B. He looked good the last 6 - 8 weeks of the season. Third is a black hole. I'm not sure Holt can play it every day and I've not seen enough of Cecchini to know if he can do it next year. I've tried to stick with Middlebrooks but this season just about wore out my patients. Someone mentioned Panda as a possibility which could be good on a short "Cherington" like contract. I think Panda is one of those guys who can look like he's in terrible shape yet play well everyday. Just not sure for how long 2, 3 maybe 4 more years. Another possibility is putting together a package for Miami's McGehee. When "push comes to shove" I think giving Holt/Cecchini 3B would be an answer.
 
The bench has plenty of players presently but I'm not sure they're the right bunch. Holt was well beyond anyone's expectations but he's just one guy. Nava surprised me when he returned to the team. He was okay and did a fine job no matter where he was. Ross's bat would not have been bad if it was not for the fact that the entire offense just was not up to the task. Weeks is not an everyday player and I doubt he would be solid over a month or so if force to play everyday. I think we need to added one or two players here - 2B/SS & 1B/3B coverage.
 
All this being said it comes down to pitching. Adding two to three solid arms such as Lester, Shields, Samardzija, Hamels and/or other unknown arm are not needed they are requirements to make the team competitive. Adding Miller back to the pen would be a solid move. Wright and Wilson add some addition arms that look good in their brief showing.
 
The offense and defense will not win awards but adding to the rotation and pen as stated here and throughout the discussion with someone who can provide solid coverage at 3B would give the Sox enough to make a run. Naturally, as the Rangers showed us once again this year you need depth all over the field to make it through a season and the Sox have that depth, mostly, in their prospects.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

My point was to look at the numbers and see if you were on to something in terms of roster construction in the post-PED era.

As it turns out, the top three teams in starters' SIERA missed the playoffs, while two of the bottom five made it. Team offense was a much better predictor -- three of the top four teams in wOBA made the playoffs; none of the bottom five did. Surprisingly, the most predictive stat was defense -- four of the top five teams in UZR made the playoffs (the fifth was the Red Sox). But each category had at least one playoff team in the bottom half, suggesting there are still lots of ways to construct a good team.

Also, if you look at the SIERA numbers, only the Indians' starters were below 3.5 as a group; the best mark among playoff teams is the A's at 3.68, and they acquired three-fifths of their rotation at the trade deadline. Teams that have four SPs with an ERA of 3.5 or better got lucky; planning to build such a rotation is tantamount to planning to fail.

The Sox obviously need to add a couple of competent SPs; no one (besides Ras) thinks they should stand pat. I believe, however, that they would be wise to focus the bulk of their efforts on upgrading the offense. Signing Lester and Shields and hoping to cobble together a competent offense with the players currently on hand seems like a poor strategy for next year, even leaving aside the effect those two contracts would have on the team's ability to compete in the latter part of this decade.

Or maybe your measures of offense and defense aren't adequate. By runs scored, the 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10th best teams made the playoffs in the AL. By runs allowed, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10th. And yes, the poor defensive team (DET) scored a lot of runs, and the poor offensive team (KC) was great at run prevention. Same pattern in the NL. To get to the postseason, you need to be average or better in both categories, and elite in one. But the goal is not to reach the playoffs, but to win. You need two great starters, an elite bullpen, and an offense that can take advantage of opportunities.

 

[snowmanny]

There are so many assertions here that fly against what is known; I have no idea where you are coming from here.

I didn't say Lester/scherzer/shields. There are a plethora of "big-name" pitchers on the FA market this offseason, Kuroda and McCarthy are two that are projected to be ~3 WAR pitchers next season. Cueto has a one year option and can be traded for. Floyd, Liriano, and Lewis are decent bets to post 3 WAR next season. McCarthy can probably be had at a discount because he was extremely unlucky this year; Kuroda could be had on a short contract. This is a buyers market for pitching; precisely the type of market the red sox should be investing in.
Once again, someone is making the assumption that the red sox/Lester negotations failed due to a breakdown in contract offers and not because the red sox/Lester wanted to see how the season turned out. Either assumption has little support except for media leaks that simply shouldn't be trusted, ever. Lester will probably cost a bit more now than previously; if he signs for a 7/175, well, there are plenty of other pitchers on the FA market or are available by trade.

How is it a strong chance that the Yankees make big splashes in FA pitching this year when they fielded a top-5 starting rotation this year? They did so last year and don't have nearly as much cash to spend this offseason as other teams. The Yankees have about 169 million in contract obligations next year. Assuming raises for arbitration probably puts them closer to 185, maybe 180 if they're lucky, add in the 5-10 million needed for flexibility during the season and they've got, at best, 35 million to spend. Furthermore, they need a lot right now: SS, 2B, a boatload of RPs. If I'm a betting man, the Yankees go after position players to re-stock a team that was marginally better offensively (92 wRC+) than the red sox (90 wRC+) this year.
Best case, they shop around bargain bins and spend about 15-20 million to fill the gaps in their 25-man roster.  This leaves them with, maybe, 15-20 million, which is enough to sign one SP; and not on a 7/175 or 5/110 deal. As I'm typing this, I realize that its probably more likely the Yankees resign McCarthy and kuroda, because tanaka is poised to return in 2016 (I'm assuming that Yankees/tanaka won't do the stupid thing and let him continue to injure his arm by pitching; I hope they do, because they'll create another albatross by doing so) and pineda may break out next year. McCarthy/Kuroda would cost about 20 million, so they can sign Ramirez to a big deal.
 

1) I certainly did misinterpret your definition of "big-name 'pitchers.  I thought you meant "big-money" pitchers i.e. S/L/S.  If we are extending this to Volquez et al it is a different matter.
 
2) It would surprise me greatly if the Yankees ignored Lester and Scherzer just sitting there.  We will see.  Last year there was no way they were going to sign all the guys they did because they were staying under $189 M.

 

[benhogan]

 
 
I think Cespedes, Betts, Castillo, Victorino & Bradley give the Sox a solid OF. I'm not sure what to do with Craig. Either Boston was too much for him, he had a terrible time getting over the ankle or he was in one of the worst slumps I've seen in a long time. I think Craig may be better off finding a new home. Not sure what to do with Nava. I like the guy but what do you do with him?
 

 
This is simple.
 
Nava stays, he is one of our few LH bats.  
 
JBJ plays everyday at AAA and hopefully figures it out at the plate (and he can take his buddy Middlebrooks with him).

 

[Myt1]

 
Because the offense hasn't improved at all?
 
 
 
That 4.83 ERA includes a 5.34 ERA from a guy who had an ERA of 1.74 the year before, not to mention the 9th through 19th games of Allen Webster's career where, I dunno, there might be some growing pains involved. 

In which he pitched 108.1 innings.  The season before, he was 4.56 in 189 innings.  The year before that, he pitched 82.2 innings.  And he has a lifetime 3.92 ERA.
 
In other words, in his lousy season this year, he was closer to his career average than in the half a season you cherry-picked.

 

[Niastri]

The MFY didn't have Rodriguez on the books this past year.  His contract changes their budget.
 
I hope the Sox sign either one or two of the biggest name pitchers and one of the top third basemen.  If this means they wind up over the tax limit, that is ok with me.  They can use the surplus of pitching prospects in the bullpen and hope their reinvigorated offense and starting pitching can carry the team.
 
Sitting through another woeful season like this is something I hope never to do again in my life.

 

[EricFeczko]

In which he pitched 108.1 innings.  The season before, he was 4.56 in 189 innings.  The year before that, he pitched 82.2 innings.  And he has a lifetime 3.92 ERA.
 
In other words, in his lousy season this year, he was closer to his career average than in the half a season you cherry-picked.

To be fair, we're talking about a pitcher that has an ERA/year look like this:
View attachment 599
Much of the fluctuation may be attributable to SSS/season. Overall, he's an oft-injured, league-average pitcher with high variability: it's impossible to predict what his 2015 season will look like.
Of course, that's a good reason to trade for a pitcher, like hamels, who looks like this:
View attachment 600
Or sign a pitcher like kuroda who looks like this:
View attachment 601
Or go after Shields, if you're worried about Kuroda relative to the league average:
View attachment 602
I would've preferred to use something a bit better than ERA as its a bit of a noisy statistic, but at least you can see ERA relative to league average.

 

[Fireball Fred]

The Sox need at least one starter who is very good AND reliable - they have nobody anything like that now. Reliability has to be judged by track record, current health, and (to some extent) age. Once they have that guy, they can put a staff together. Until they have that guy, they're a long way from contention and might as well play the kids.

 

[snowmanny]

The MFY didn't have Rodriguez on the books this past year.  His contract changes their budget.
 

 
True, but they also lose Kuroda, Jeter, Ichiro for $34 Million and missing the playoffs again might also change their budget.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The Sox need at least one starter who is very good AND reliable - they have nobody anything like that now. Reliability has to be judged by track record, current health, and (to some extent) age. Once they have that guy, they can put a staff together. Until they have that guy, they're a long way from contention and might as well play the kids.

If there are two starters on the market with big game experience that would only cost money I don't get why the Sox would need to make a trade with the Phillies for Hamels or any other team. They could sign both Lester and Shields and still have money to play around with all while keeping one of the best farm systems in baseball. I think that they should especially look into adding both because of the kids. Having mentors like those two around would really help guys like RDLR, Webster, Owens, Barnes etc...I wouldn't go more than 4 years on Shields but Lester 5 or 6 wouldn't hurt.

If you're keeping Cespedes you might as well go all in for 2015.

 

[Myt1]

To be fair, we're talking about a pitcher that has an ERA/year look like this:
3543_P_season_full_0_20140928.png
Much of the fluctuation may be attributable to SSS/season. Overall, he's an oft-injured, league-average pitcher with high variability: it's impossible to predict what his 2015 season will look like.
Of course, that's a good reason to trade for a pitcher, like hamels, who looks like this:
4972_P_season_full_0_20140928.png
Or sign a pitcher like kuroda who looks like this:
3283_P_season_full_0_20140928.png
Or go after Shields, if you're worried about Kuroda relative to the league average:
7059_P_season_full_0_20140928.png
I would've preferred to use something a bit better than ERA as its a bit of a noisy statistic, but at least you can see ERA relative to league average.

Exactly. I'm just playing with what I'm given, though. Throwing out Buccholz's crazy year as unusual when, in fact, it's pretty much the only thing that is predictable about him, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially when reaching for an even bigger anomaly.

 

[EricFeczko]

Are you aware that Kuroda will be 40 years old next year? Because if you are, I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that fact when you keep mentioning his name as a target.

I'm aware. I'm also aware that Kuroda has an outlier aging curve and showed no signs of slowing down this year; his second half performance was better than his first half. Furthermore, his age makes him cheap and available on a one year deal. The team that signs him next year (assuming he still wants to pitch) will be getting a discount.

 

[lxt]

If there are two starters on the market with big game experience that would only cost money I don't get why the Sox would need to make a trade with the Phillies for Hamels or any other team. They could sign both Lester and Shields and still have money to play around with all while keeping one of the best farm systems in baseball. I think that they should especially look into adding both because of the kids. Having mentors like those two around would really help guys like RDLR, Webster, Owens, Barnes etc...I wouldn't go more than 4 years on Shields but Lester 5 or 6 wouldn't hurt.

If you're keeping Cespedes you might as well go all in for 2015.

Two would be nice but three are need, that's why I'd trade for a solid (Hamels, Samardzija ...) starter. Buchholz is Dr. Jackel and Mr. Hyde. We don't know who's coming to pitch next season. Kelly did okay but there is nothing that indicates he is better than a 4 or 5. Each of the youngsters had their moments but no one stands out. Webster seem to get better with each game but those first ones were scary. So I'd trade for a solid, young pitcher if one can be bought to go with a Lester/Shields combination. Besides there are no guarantees that Lester and/or Shields can be had by the Sox. GMs and Owners have gone a tad insane these last couple of years with money and years. The Yankees are no longer the only insane, money spending crazies out there. As I said trade for two and buy two pick any three.

 

[EricFeczko]

Two would be nice but three are need, that's why I'd trade for a solid (Hamels, Samardzija ...) starter. Buchholz is Dr. Jackel and Mr. Hyde. We don't know who's coming to pitch next season. Kelly did okay but there is nothing that indicates he is better than a 4 or 5. Each of the youngsters had their moments but no one stands out. Webster seem to get better with each game but those first ones were scary. So I'd trade for a solid, young pitcher if one can be bought to go with a Lester/Shields combination. Besides there are no guarantees that Lester and/or Shields can be had by the Sox. GMs and Owners have gone a tad insane these last couple of years with money and years. The Yankees are no longer the only insane, money spending crazies out there. As I said trade for two and buy two pick any three.

Buchholz and Kelly basically have to start in the majors next season. Ditto for RLDR, because he's out of options. Unless you plan to trade/cut one of Buchholz/Kelly/RLDR, signing three starters doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

[EricFeczko]

Exactly. I'm just playing with what I'm given, though. Throwing out Buccholz's crazy year as unusual when, in fact, it's pretty much the only thing that is predictable about him, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially when reaching for an even bigger anomaly.

I completely agree. I thought it'd be nice to show the data for others, though.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Buchholz and Kelly basically have to start in the majors next season. Ditto for RLDR, because he's out of options. Unless you plan to trade/cut one of Buchholz/Kelly/RLDR, signing three starters doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 
Unless RDLR is converted to a swingman / back-up starter for next year.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Unless RDLR is converted to a swingman / back-up starter for next year.

I guess that's possible. Personally, I think RLDR still has a shot to breakout next year, though his chances of even being a #3 starter have dimmed significantly.
Another interesting idea is to convert him to a short-reliever and see if he can learn to pitch in high-leverage situations. He has the velocity to do so.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Two would be nice but three are need, that's why I'd trade for a solid (Hamels, Samardzija ...) starter. Buchholz is Dr. Jackel and Mr. Hyde. We don't know who's coming to pitch next season. Kelly did okay but there is nothing that indicates he is better than a 4 or 5. Each of the youngsters had their moments but no one stands out. Webster seem to get better with each game but those first ones were scary. So I'd trade for a solid, young pitcher if one can be bought to go with a Lester/Shields combination. Besides there are no guarantees that Lester and/or Shields can be had by the Sox. GMs and Owners have gone a tad insane these last couple of years with money and years. The Yankees are no longer the only insane, money spending crazies out there. As I said trade for two and buy two pick any three.

But why would you trade prospects and then take on the contract of the guy that you're trading for when comparable options are available and only cost money? I just don't understand the logic

 

[benhogan]

Buchholz and Kelly basically have to start in the majors next season. Ditto for RLDR, because he's out of options. Unless you plan to trade/cut one of Buchholz/Kelly/RLDR, signing three starters doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Rubby can be a bullpen arm, he doesn't have to be one of the starting 5
 
edit..already stated above apologies

 

[Fireball Fred]

But why would you trade prospects and then take on the contract of the guy that you're trading for when comparable options are available and only cost money? I just don't understand the logic

This is what the Sox do in major acquisitions - with Martinez, Schilling, Gonzalez, I guess Beckett. Why? Because they've never won an auction against the Yankees. (Also explains preemptive bids for Matsuzaka, Crawford.)

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

This is what the Sox do in major acquisitions - with Martinez, Schilling, Gonzalez, I guess Beckett. Why? Because they've never won an auction against the Yankees. (Also explains preemptive bids for Matsuzaka, Crawford.)

The Yankees are not guaranteed to spend this offseason though. Remember while Jeter retired they do have A-Rod coming back which counts against their money for the next three seasons. I think baseball has become competitive enough where people can't only operate in the vacuum of the Yankees, Red Sox, and everyone else. If anything the Sox should be more concerned about the Cubs. I still believe 110% Lester will return. The Sox made the right move capitalizing on his career year getting a middle of the order bat on a team that needed one.

Look at the free agent market. What was out there other than Castillo and Tomas for bats? This was one of the worst free agent markets for hitting in recent memory. Ben made a smart move getting a guy who would really upgrade the offense in 2015 for when they would be able to contend. I think that's the clue fans need to focus on rather than why they didn't hammer out an extension with Lester when they were 8 games out of the AL East. They gambled in spring training and lost but they should have an understanding of what it will take to sign him. Since that is the case I'm thinking he's the first pitcher off the board.

RDLR should not even be considered for the pen at this point. Let him build more stamina, come back and start. For a stretch he was one of the best pitchers on the team. Workman on the other hand should be the 7th inning guy here.

Lester
Shields
Buchholz
Kelly
RDLR

LR - Webster or Wright

 

[Myt1]

I completely agree. I thought it'd be nice to show the data for others, though.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VwbFuqdcGoY