Sox offseason starting pitching target

chawson · Aug 31, 2015

If we finish bottom-10, with a protected pick, it gives us a leg up on Samardzija and/or Zimmermann over their other suitors.

Tyrone Biggums · Aug 31, 2015

No more screwing around attempting to find an ace. Bring David Price in. Whatever it takes. No draft pick compensation and no prospects need to be sacrificed. The guy has been excellent and consistent.

Papelbon's Poutine · Aug 31, 2015

A team willing to give over $100M to a FA isn't really concerned with a draft pick. It's the marginal FAs where that becomes a factor.

MillarTime · Aug 31, 2015

Tyrone Biggums said:
No more screwing around attempting to find an ace. Bring David Price in. Whatever it takes. No draft pick compensation and no prospects need to be sacrificed. The guy has been excellent and consistent.

This is where I am. Would rather just pay market for the sure thing (at least in the short-run) than try to find the new market inefficiency or pay less for someone with some baggage or uncertainty.

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

Trotsky said:
[snip]...

I think the Sox will go hard and heavy after Price and will get their man for 27.5 per for 7 years.

...[snip]

Given that:
1) The Red Sox owner is on record against big money given to sign 30+ pitchers,
2) Dave Dombrowski never signed a big money FA pitcher in Detroit, (preferring to trade prospects for pitching)
3) The Red Sox payroll is already close to the salary cap limit.

I think your "hard and heavy" expectations are unrealistic.

LuckyBen · Aug 31, 2015

I'm not seeing Mike Leake on that list. I could see us going after a pitcher like him. 27 as of now and always been a solid pitcher. He's not an ace like Price, but might have a reasonable price tag.

Tyrone Biggums · Aug 31, 2015

WenZink said:
Given that:
1) The Red Sox owner is on record against big money given to sign 30+ pitchers,
2) Dave Dombrowski never signed a big money FA pitcher in Detroit, (preferring to trade prospects for pitching)
3) The Red Sox payroll is already close to the salary cap limit.

I think your "hard and heavy" expectations are unrealistic.

1) Henry gave complete control to Dombrowski. Henry has to sign off on it. But this is DD's show.

2) While he didn't sign a FA SP they did re sign Verlander to a record deal. He is also very familiar with David Price as well since they were both with the Tigers last month. He might actually look at it as almost like a re signing rather than going after an unknown commodity.

3) They are shedding Napoli Mujica Victorino and will not have to pay the Dodgers anything. They can afford to pay a top flight guy.

moondog80 · Aug 31, 2015

I think a trade is more likely. Swihart (can be replaced by Vazquez, we hope) and Margot (sort of blocked now and perhaps has been passed by Benintendi) as the main pieces for Sale or Gray.

ALiveH · Aug 31, 2015

Miley, Porcello, Buch, Kelly, Owens, EdRod, Johnson, Wright - that's 8-deep on legit MLB starting pitchers. None of these project as likely #2 or better types in 2016, let alone Ace, but I'd be happy with any of them as my #4 or 5, obviously need some depth for injuries or ineffectiveness, but it seems the roster is well-positioned to go 2-for-1 in a trade for an "Ace" from this group (not Porcello obviously), plus maybe one other non-untouchable position player prospect to get the deal done.

I haven't run the numbers in a while, but from what I remember, if they sign a top-flight free agent pitcher, they'll have about zero left to spend, unless they find a creative way to shed salary. So, that seems more unlikely even if JWH will sign off on the deal.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 31, 2015

LuckyBen said:
I'm not seeing Mike Leake on that list.

Um, look again?

bohous · Aug 31, 2015

Trotsky said:
<snip>
Out of the group of Greinke, Price, Shark, Zimmerman, Cueto, Latos, Leake and Kazmir only Greinke, Price, Cueto and Zimmerman really intrigue me.

I'm with you here although I give pause on Greinke as a good fit in Boston. Price is the real prize but I like really like Zimmerman as well. He's been durable and thrown significantly fewer inning than either Cueto or Price.

WenZink said:
Given that:
1) The Red Sox owner is on record against big money given to sign 30+ pitchers,
2) Dave Dombrowski never signed a big money FA pitcher in Detroit, (preferring to trade prospects for pitching)
3) The Red Sox payroll is already close to the salary cap limit.

I think your "hard and heavy" expectations are unrealistic.

I could see DD placing a call to the Mets and working an OF for SP deal.

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

Tyrone Biggums said:
1) Henry gave complete control to Dombrowski. Henry has to sign off on it. But this is DD's show.

2) While he didn't sign a FA SP they did re sign Verlander to a record deal. He is also very familiar with David Price as well since they were both with the Tigers last month. He might actually look at it as almost like a re signing rather than going after an unknown commodity.

3) They are shedding Napoli Mujica Victorino and will not have to pay the Dodgers anything. They can afford to pay a top flight guy.

Exactly, this is DD's show, hired by an owner that knows him well. And DD hasn't signed FA pitchers to big money with Detroit. I'm sure he's not feeling too good about the Verlander extension) And even without Napoli and Victorino, Porcello's AAV jumps to $20 mil in 2016 and Price would still put them over the cap. Henry has said he doesn't mind going over the cap, but only as long as he could get under it the next year or two. Maybe they want to wait to see what the next cap will be before commit.

It's okay to say what you want to happen, but saying it will happen, when all evidence suggests otherwise, is just plain silly.

Mighty Joe Young · Aug 31, 2015

Well .. if the Hanley to 1B experiment works out well enough they won't go out and get another first baseman. Between them Hanley and Shaw should prove adequate. Basically, the lineup will be set. So all the money can go to SPs and the bullpen.

If the Ace is aquired via a trade (which I think unlikely - neither Sale or Grey should be available unless completely overwhelmed) then that will free up a bunch of cash which can be spent on a Closer-in-Waiting and another setup guy.

Of course, they may decide to fix the bullpen via trades and sign an Ace and a B level starter (Shark for example).

LuckyBen · Aug 31, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Um, look again?

Well he's not on the list, but his name does show up once in the middle paragraph. The point being, I could see DD going after someone like Leake who might be more affordable than the top three or four free agents available.

Tyrone Biggums · Aug 31, 2015

WenZink said:
Exactly, this is DD's show, hired by an owner that knows him well. And DD hasn't signed FA pitchers to big money with Detroit. I'm sure he's not feeling too good about the Verlander extension) And even without Napoli and Victorino, Porcello's AAV jumps to $20 mil in 2016 and Price would still put them over the cap. Henry has said he doesn't mind going over the cap, but only as long as he could get under it the next year or two. Maybe they want to wait to see what the next cap will be before commit.

It's okay to say what you want to happen, but saying it will happen, when all evidence suggests otherwise, is just plain silly.

The Sox also had the mantra that they did not need an ace coming into this year. That really did not work out all so well. The Sox also have a lot invested in nesn which has seen ratings drop again. Now you do have to realize that things have changed over the last few years. Young starting pitching is the rarest commodity out there. The chances of trading for an ace is slim to none.

The clearest option for now is to go out and go after Price. Just because the Verlander deal didn't work out doesn't make it any less realistic.

johnnywayback · Aug 31, 2015

I could understand preferring to sign a front-line starter over trading for one if we didn't have a surplus of elite prospects at blocked positions, or if we had another glaring need that could only be filled by trade.

But it's unlikely that Margot is ever going to be a contributor to the major league team -- not with Betts, Bradley, and Castillo already locked in for the next few years and Benintendi close on Margot's heels.

It's unlikely that Javy Guerra is ever going to be a contributor to the major league team -- not with Bogaerts looking like the long-term answer at shortstop.

(Beyond them, it's very possible (but not certain) that they feel confident enough in Vazquez to trade Swihart this off-season. But leave that aside for the moment.)

A package beginning with Margot and Guerra could get you a very good starting pitcher. Maybe not Gray (I think Beane has proven that, if he does trade Gray, he'll go for whatever package has whatever player he covets for whatever reason), but Carrasco, Ross, etc. -- I bet they can find a front-line starter there. I'd then turn my free agent attention to guys less likely to command $200 million: Samardzija, Leake, Kennedy, etc. And, in fact, if you do that, you can add either Miley or Owens to the trade pile.

What you'd have would be a better version of what we were going for this year -- a rotation with no future albatross contracts and a bunch of solid starters with some upside: Carrasco, Rodriguez, Buchholz, Kennedy, Porcello, for example.

If you can't get a front-line starter with a package beginning with Margot and Guerra, sure, you may have to overpay David Price or Jordan Zimmermann. But I prefer the trade route, and I hope they do, too.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 31, 2015

moondog80 said:
I think a trade is more likely. Swihart (can be replaced by Vazquez, we hope) and Margot (sort of blocked now and perhaps has been passed by Benintendi) as the main pieces for Sale or Gray.

You mean the 23-year-old catcher whose monthly wRC+ splits have been 38, 86, 90, 160? I'd rather trade Mookie. I'd almost rather trade Xander, even though we really need him and he's grown tremendously this year. I don't think anybody in the organization, with the possible exception of Moncada, is more untouchable than Blake Swihart right now. Especially since we have no idea how Vazquez will fare after a year off.

LuckyBen said:
Well he's not on the list, but his name does show up once in the middle paragraph. The point being, I could see DD going after someone like Leake who might be more affordable than the top three or four free agents available.

I'm seeing him right under Latos, but whatever. Seems to me Leake would be 2014-15 offseason redux. Though I suppose you could make the argument that that strategy can't possibly be a train wreck two years in a row.

johnnywayback · Aug 31, 2015

Tyrone Biggums said:
The Sox also had the mantra that they did not need an ace coming into this year. That really did not work out all so well.

What didn't work out so well was assuming that Masterson would regain his form, Kelly would reach his potential, Buchholz would stay healthy all year, and Porcello wouldn't fall off a cliff for mysterious but apparently fixable reasons.

There remain very few pieces of evidence for the wisdom of giving a guy in his 30s a seven-year, nine-figure contract.

moondog80 · Aug 31, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
You mean the 23-year-old catcher whose monthly wRC+ splits have been 38, 86, 90, 160? I'd rather trade Mookie. I'd almost rather trade Xander, even though we really need him and he's grown tremendously this year. I don't think anybody in the organization, with the possible exception of Moncada, is more untouchable than Blake Swihart right now. Especially since we have no idea how Vazquez will fare after a year off.

Yes, him. Gray is under team control for only one fewer year than Swihart, and Sale has 4 years and 47 mil on his ridiculously cheap extension. I get that the hitter is always a safer bet than the pitcher, but the pitchers in these case are already studs, the hitter is a could-be stud. And he's only got one extra year of club control.

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

Sox have 3 CFers on the team, with Margot and Benintendi playing CF in the system, and with Moncada having the potential to be moved from 2nd to the OF. They also have 23 year old Swihart at Catcher, with Vazquez coming back from TJ surgery. (I'd say Moncada is a no trade, unless he gets a ridiculous return. The Sox have a huge investment in him.)

it makes much more sense to assume that DD deals from the organization's strength and where they have redundancy than try to convince J Henry to accept the possibility of luxury tax hell for the next 5 years.

The other option, this winter, is to wait and see if they prospects gain in value, but it also works the other way.

Mighty Joe Young · Aug 31, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
You mean the 23-year-old catcher whose monthly wRC+ splits have been 38, 86, 90, 160? I'd rather trade Mookie. I'd almost rather trade Xander, even though we really need him and he's grown tremendously this year. I don't think anybody in the organization, with the possible exception of Moncada, is more untouchable than Blake Swihart right now. Especially since we have no idea how Vazquez will fare after a year off.

I'm seeing him right under Latos, but whatever. Seems to me Leake would be 2014-15 offseason redux. Though I suppose you could make the argument that that strategy can't possibly be a train wreck two years in a row.

I think banking on Vazquez is completely misguided. Was the Vazquez circa 2013 a championship level starter? Considering his putrid offense I would say no. Factoring in the fact he had TJ surgery there's no guarantee his defense will return to the previous level. a Swihart/Vazquez combo is not surplus to requirements.

If they decide to use the prospects then, as previously mentioned, Margot and Guerra lead the list - with one of Owens and Johnson as the sweetener. I think Moncada, Benintendi, Devers and Espinosa are more or less untouchable at this stage.

jscola85 · Aug 31, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
You mean the 23-year-old catcher whose monthly wRC+ splits have been 38, 86, 90, 160? I'd rather trade Mookie. I'd almost rather trade Xander, even though we really need him and he's grown tremendously this year. I don't think anybody in the organization, with the possible exception of Moncada, is more untouchable than Blake Swihart right now. Especially since we have no idea how Vazquez will fare after a year off.

I'm seeing him right under Latos, but whatever. Seems to me Leake would be 2014-15 offseason redux. Though I suppose you could make the argument that that strategy can't possibly be a train wreck two years in a row.

Leake to me screams "more of the same." He's not going to be any cheaper than a Homer Bailey type contract and so if we're going into that territory, I'd rather overpay for a David Price and eat a couple bad years at the back end, given this team's desperate need for a #1 starter.

As for Swihart, I completely agree that he's basically off-limits at this point. We have no clue if Vazquez will ever hit (his ZiPS projection is an ugly 76 wRC+) and he will likely be very rusty after a year off. Even with that disastrous first month where he was just trying to figure out the pitchers he was catching, he still ranks as an average bat and plus defender among MLB catchers, while not being a total liability on the bases like a Molina brother.

Betts is probably the most expendable among the "young stars" crew, particularly if you believe Bradley/Castillo are going to keep hitting even remotely close to the way they have since being recalled. He'd be a tough piece to let go of, but if he became the centerpiece for someone like Chris Sale, Sonny Gray or one of the Mets young studs, it's hard to say no given the pitching needs.

johnnywayback · Aug 31, 2015

To expand the pool of names: I wonder what it would take to get the Nationals' attention on Stephen Strasburg.

The Nats have Joe Ross already looking great in the rotation, with Lucas Giolito en route and Tanner Roark lurking in the periphery; even if they don't re-sign Zimmermann or Fister, that's three solid guys to go with Scherzer and Gio Gonzalez. More to the point, they've clashed with Boras over the handling of Strasburg and watched him struggle a bit this year. If they don't intend on signing him to a big-time contract after next year (something akin to what they already have given Scherzer), it makes sense that they might explore his value on the trade market.

And if you think I'm nuts, and the Nats are planning on building a long-term rotation around two $30m/year pitchers in Scherzer and Strasburg, then maybe they'd talk about Gio Gonzalez.

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

jscola85 said:
Leake to me screams "more of the same." He's not going to be any cheaper than a Homer Bailey type contract and so if we're going into that territory, I'd rather overpay for a David Price and eat a couple bad years at the back end, given this team's desperate need for a #1 starter.

As for Swihart, I completely agree that he's basically off-limits at this point. We have no clue if Vazquez will ever hit (his ZiPS projection is an ugly 76 wRC+) and he will likely be very rusty after a year off. Even with that disastrous first month where he was just trying to figure out the pitchers he was catching, he still ranks as an average bat and plus defender among MLB catchers, while not being a total liability on the bases like a Molina brother.

Betts is probably the most expendable among the "young stars" crew, particularly if you believe Bradley/Castillo are going to keep hitting even remotely close to the way they have since being recalled. He'd be a tough piece to let go of, but if he became the centerpiece for someone like Chris Sale, Sonny Gray or one of the Mets young studs, it's hard to say no given the pitching needs.

Hopefully they can determine early next year if Vazquez will have a full recovery and still has the arm strength -- although I'd expect it to be a gradual process. But if/when he is back to full recovery, there's no way the Sox keep both Swihart and Vazquez over the long run. Maybe someday, Swihart develops the power to play 1st base, but not anytime soon.

chrisfont9 · Aug 31, 2015

Gammons says that Pedro is a big Cueto backer. I'd been souring on him as an NL guy who isn't making the transition very well, but SSS and transitions take time. Anyway, I'd be curious to know what Pedro's support is about, given his role with the team. In general I'm in favor of spending the FA dollars on a top guy where there's no draft pick compensation. There's risk to the money, but if you have held on to your prospects, it makes it easier to solve all sorts of problems, even getting rid of a bad contract.

moondog80 · Aug 31, 2015

To be clear, I'm not advocating trading Swihart because I want to free up time for Vazquez. I just think that as good as he his, Gray and Sale are both super-elite pieces (Fangraphs had them 6th and 15 in the trade value rankings), and Swihart isn't at that level. The fact that we have Vazquez is just a happy coincidence.

nvalvo · Aug 31, 2015

There are four legit aces available this offseason. Who's in the market for good-to-elite FA starting pitching?

Teams marked Likely are teams that I judge are trying to contend in 2016-18, have a history of signing expensive FAs, and need pitching.

Teams marked Unlikely ($) don’t seem likely to have the budget to sink $140m+ in an FA starting pitcher.
Teams marked Unlikely (All set) probably think they have enough pitching.
Teams marked Unlikely (Success Cycle) aren’t likely to contend in 2016.
Teams marked Unlikely (Geophysics) can’t sign FA pitchers because they play in Denver.
? Indicates relatively low certainty on my part.

ALE

Boston — Likely
New York — Likely
Baltimore — Unlikely ($)
Toronto — Likely
Tampa Bay — No ($; All set)

ALC

Chicago — Unlikely (All set)
Kansas City — Unlikely ($)
Minnesota — Semi-Likely ($)
Cleveland — Unlikely ($)
Detroit — Semi-Likely (Success Cycle?)

ALW

Oakland — Unlikely ($)
Seattle — Unlikely (All set)
Texas — Unlikely (All set)
Anaheim — Semi-Likely ($?)
Houston — Unlikely (All set)

NLE

Washington — Unlikely (All set?)
New York — Unlikely (All set)
Atlanta — Unlikely (Success Cycle)
Miami — Unlikely ($)
Philadelphia — Unlikely (Success Cycle)

NLC

Pittsburgh — Unlikely ($)
St. Louis — Unlikely (All Set)
Chicago — Unlikely (All Set)
Milwaukee — Unlikely ($; Success Cycle)
Cincinnati — Unlikely ($; Success Cycle)

NLW
Los Angeles — Likely
San Francisco — Likely
San Diego — Unlikely ($)
Colorado — Unlikely (Geophysics)
Arizona — Unlikely ($; Success Cycle)

The competition for FA arms is thus five teams:

Boston (Lots of pitching, but need an ace and a bullpen. Great young players up the middle.)
New York (Four good young starters and Sabathia. Injury questions on Sabathia, Pineda, and Tanaka. An FA would push Severino to the sixth spot, which seems desirable.)
Toronto (Window is now with Bautista, Encarnacion, and Donaldson.)
San Francisco (Great homegrown core of position players, but a faltering rotation — shedding a lot of money in Lincecum, Hudson, and Leake.)
Los Angeles ($$$$$$$$$)

and maybe:
Detroit (I'm not quite sure what they’re trying to do in 2016.)
Anaheim (Can they afford another big contract?)
Minnesota (I know, but they seem like they’re an ace and a Buxton breakout away from being really, really good.)

Let me know if any of my judgments seem inaccurate.

(Of course, someone else could surprise. Chicago could deal Sale to the Northside for Kyle Schwarber, Starlin Castro, and another young Cubs position player or two, replacing him with Zimmerman. It would probably improve both teams. I wouldn’t bet on it happening.)

johnnywayback · Aug 31, 2015

Houston was in on Hamels until the end; I'd imagine they'll be players. Who the hell knows what the Padres are planning to do, but they also seem willing to spend.

The Cubs could well be in on a pitcher, although it seems like they'd be natural match for the Mets in a position-player-for-starter deal that would put the Mets on the list. But that's just what I'd do if I were either of those teams. And, frankly, I can imagine a number of teams that you have as "all set" but that might decide to trade a pitcher for some offense -- St. Louis primary among them, but also Washington and maybe even Seattle.

nothumb · Aug 31, 2015

WenZink said:
Hopefully they can determine early next year if Vazquez will have a full recovery and still has the arm strength -- although I'd expect it to be a gradual process. But if/when he is back to full recovery, there's no way the Sox keep both Swihart and Vazquez over the long run. Maybe someday, Swihart develops the power to play 1st base, but not anytime soon.

Weren't you the same guy who was saying there is NO WAY Hanley is the solution at 1B in another thread? I think you better cool it with your crystal ball.

Of course they could end up keeping Vazquez and Swihart. Vazquez could end up as a defense-first backup if his bat doesn't develop. It may appear that the Sox have surplus value on the roster by having two good young catchers, but if they can't find a trade partner to help them realize that value, they could simply decide to keep both. I actually would not be the least bit surprised to see Vazquez start 2016 in AAA with Swihart and Hanigan in Boston until CV gets back up to speed. And if the Sox did roll with the two youngsters at C, it frees up payroll to invest in the pitching staff.

Hell, we could end up seeing Swihart in a C / CI / DH rotation that includes Hanley, Vaz, Shaw, and/or Panda as soon as 2017 if his bat develops and Vaz forces the issue. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but it's certainly not "no way." If I had to guess, I'd say DD will eventually trade one of Vaz or Swihart, but it's close, and I bet it doesn't happen until July 2016 at the earliest - possibly after the 2016 season.

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are an unlikely player in the big time FA market this winter. CJ Wilson and Weaver are in the last years of their contracts, both making $20 million for a projected low return. With Trout's salary Puljols and 70% of Hamilton's contract on the books, they can't add another large contract.

But, as we've learned in the last few years, nothing is a guarantee. It's hard to predict with all the money in the game. The Red Sox are unlikely, but, again, owners sometimes do crazy things.

nvalvo · Aug 31, 2015

johnnywayback said:
Houston was in on Hamels until the end; I'd imagine they'll be players.

Do you (and others) think Houston should be filed under Likely or under Maybe?

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

nothumb said:
Weren't you the same guy who was saying there is NO WAY Hanley is the solution at 1B in another thread? I think you better cool it with your crystal ball.

...[sinp]

Actually, I said moving Hanley to first would be unlikely to work and could be a disaster. So after 30 minutes of practicing his footwork, you think it's a success already? Maybe you ought to cool your jets and wait and see.

chrisfont9 · Aug 31, 2015

nvalvo said:
Seattle — Unlikely (All set)

Minor correction. Not all set with Iwakuma coming off the books (and at 35 not sure they'll outbid all comers), and with Paxton unable to stay healthy. Their 2016 rotation is now Felix, Walker and a bunch of question marks. But your essential judgment is correct -- they aren't likely to be playing for an ace, since those two are ace-level; they need more dependable 3-4-5 guys.

Buzzkill Pauley · Aug 31, 2015

I like Cueto best among the FA crop. I think he'll cost much less than Price, in terms of overall commitment because of his elbow "concerns" and can't cost draft picks because he was traded. Plus, he throws right-handed and has a built-in Pedro connection.

I want no part of David Price, for what he's going to cost. I'd love to get Greinke even more than Cueto, but think the Boston media zealots would start crucifying him before he even started spring training.

That'll likely happen any of these big names. But at least Cueto can rely on Pedro and Papi to talk him through the inevitable.

nothumb · Aug 31, 2015

WenZink said:
Actually, I said moving Hanley to first would be unlikely to work and could be a disaster. So after 30 minutes of practicing his footwork, you think it's a success already? Maybe you ought to cool your jets and wait and see.

I may be remembering wrong - there was someone in one of the other Hanley threads who pronounced there was NO WAY he could work in LF and NO WAY he could work at 1B, therefore he needed to be unloaded to a team that needs a DH. I thought it was you.

I would actually agree that it's likely that one of Swihart or Vaz gets moved, I just object to the "no way" or the aura of certainty around particular moves in these speculative threads. A lot of people on this board seem unequipped to deal with conditional probabilities and incomplete information.

I think it was a good idea to start trying Hanley at 1B now and see what he can do. My big argument was not that it's a lock to work - he could absolutely be terrible - but that we need to start finding out now so 1) he has a head start thinking about it during the offseason and ST, and 2) we have that much more information to work with in the meantime. Seems the FO agrees. Similarly, I think there's no rush on the catchers - very little opportunity cost in waiting to see what happens with Vaz' recovery, and good options on the field in the meantime. (I'm not saying you were pushing to deal one right away, just trying to tie this tangent somehow back to the tangent we were already on re: trading a catcher.)

WenZink · Aug 31, 2015

nothumb said:
I may be remembering wrong - there was someone in one of the other Hanley threads who pronounced there was NO WAY he could work in LF and NO WAY he could work at 1B, therefore he needed to be unloaded to a team that needs a DH. I thought it was you.

I would actually agree that it's likely that one of Swihart or Vaz gets moved, I just object to the "no way" or the aura of certainty around particular moves in these speculative threads. A lot of people on this board seem unequipped to deal with conditional probabilities and incomplete information.

I think it was a good idea to start trying Hanley at 1B now and see what he can do. My big argument was not that it's a lock to work - he could absolutely be terrible - but that we need to start finding out now so 1) he has a head start thinking about it during the offseason and ST, and 2) we have that much more information to work with in the meantime. Seems the FO agrees. Similarly, I think there's no rush on the catchers - very little opportunity cost in waiting to see what happens with Vaz' recovery, and good options on the field in the meantime. (I'm not saying you were pushing to deal one right away, just trying to tie this tangent somehow back to the tangent we were already on re: trading a catcher.)

I argued that giving Hanely another off-season and ST in left field had a higher chance of working than betting it all on his ability to be a "serviceable" 1st baseman. I wanted a 4 person rotation in the OF, if Hanley got better. Now, there's no turning back if they keep trying him at 1st, and, if he fails, they're either going to have to eat 70% of his contract or "red-shirt" him until Papi retires.

And what I sad about Swihart/Vazquez, is that, in the long run, there's no way they can keep both. They have too many needs in their rotation and bullpen. They have no clear prospect help at AAA or AA (Margot is struggling, at 20). Given all their holes, you can't hold on to 3 center fielders and 2 starting catchers, plus Hannigan under contract. The Angels' Mike Scioscia, salivates at the prospect of Vazquez catching for his team. If you could get an Andrew Heaney in return, he might be the missing piece, plus prospects to go after Sonny Gray.

sean1562 · Aug 31, 2015

Buzzkill Pauley said:
I like Cueto best among the FA crop. I think he'll cost much less than Price, in terms of overall commitment because of his elbow "concerns" and can't cost draft picks because he was traded. Plus, he throws right-handed and has a built-in Pedro connection.

I want no part of David Price, for what he's going to cost. I'd love to get Greinke even more than Cueto, but think the Boston media zealots would start crucifying him before he even started spring training.

That'll likely happen any of these big names. But at least Cueto can rely on Pedro and Papi to talk him through the inevitable.

Price was also traded so wont be getting a QO.

nvalvo · Aug 31, 2015

So, taking feedback into account:

Boston
New York
Toronto
LA
SF
Houston

Six clubs in the hunt for four aces. Hard to tell if that's sufficient demand to send prices to the Scherzer-level stratosphere, but my sense is that it probably isn't.

richgedman'sghost · Aug 31, 2015

The Red Sox better stop winning because they are in danger of falling out of the bottom 10 in baseball. As long as they finish in the bottom 10 of teams, they do not have to worry about losing a draft pick if they sign a top tier free agent such as Price or Cueto...etc.. I count Philly Atlanta, MILWAUKEE, Florida, Cincinnati, Detroit as definite to finish below us. That is why I prefer watching a game like yesterday's : lots of progress by guys like JBJ, Betts and Rusney and a late loss by the bullpen.

nothumb · Aug 31, 2015

WenZink said:
I argued that giving Hanely another off-season and ST in left field had a higher chance of working than betting it all on his ability to be a "serviceable" 1st baseman. I wanted a 4 person rotation in the OF, if Hanley got better. Now, there's no turning back if they keep trying him at 1st, and, if he fails, they're either going to have to eat 70% of his contract or "red-shirt" him until Papi retires.

And what I sad about Swihart/Vazquez, is that, in the long run, there's no way they can keep both. They have too many needs in their rotation and bullpen. They have no clear prospect help at AAA or AA (Margot is struggling, at 20). Given all their holes, you can't hold on to 3 center fielders and 2 starting catchers, plus Hannigan under contract. The Angels' Mike Scioscia, salivates at the prospect of Vazquez catching for his team. If you could get an Andrew Heaney in return, he might be the missing piece, plus prospects to go after Sonny Gray.

Again, there's not NO WAY they can keep both. It's not even a sure thing that Vaz is a starting catcher or will come back healthy. There's no way of knowing that Dombrowski can't fill out the rotation with money and/or other prospects. Vaz could easily spend the first half of next season in AAA, at which point you decide whether to call him up, trade him or trade one of the others. Swihart could hit enough to be a swing catcher / DH / corner infielder. I agree that if Vaz seems healthy and is making progress, it makes a lot of sense to explore a trade, but first of all that's a big IF, and second you need a dancing partner. Three weeks ago people were saying "there's no way you can keep both JBJ and Mookie." Actually, it may turn out that even though there is a perceived surplus, the way you reap the most value is simply by playing them, because nobody is willing to pay what they're worth. We can't know for sure whether that's the case because we don't know what the Sox will be offered for JBJ or Vaz or anyone else. But we do know that DD has a pretty good track record of betting on the right guys, so if he decides to hang on to both catchers, even in the 'long run,' that's fine with me.

jon abbey · Aug 31, 2015

nvalvo said:
So, taking feedback into account:

Boston
New York
Toronto
LA
SF
Houston

Six clubs in the hunt for four aces. Hard to tell if that's sufficient demand to send prices to the Scherzer-level stratosphere, but my sense is that it probably isn't.

I think the Yankees are pretty unlikely to go after the top SPs this winter, unless maybe they trade guys first. Their need is to get younger position players, so unless they trade Nova or Warren or both, I don't think you have to worry about them as competition for Price etc.

I would add the Cubs though.

Hank Scorpio · Aug 31, 2015

I'd like to go hard after David Price, as he's proven dominant and durable, and we know he can pitch big games in the AL East.

I have a variety of concerns about the other options, be it Cueto's elbow, Greinke's makeup issues, Shark's mediocrity/name-spelling, etc...

Depending on what Clay's elbow looks like in MRI's, he might not be back at all, so that might be a few more million to throw into the SP pool.

Regarding the luxury tax cap:

- Shouldn't be looked at as a hard limit in our case, or even something to avoid going over in consecutive years. Obviously, I don't think JWH is going to let DDski unabashedly blow past it, but if you're looking at a $190M cap, and shoring up the bullpen and getting an ace will put the payroll at ~$195M, I don't think paying even a 100% tax on that $5M would be an issue if it's making a clear and significant difference to the roster.

Obviously though, if you're already at the cap, I don't think you start tossing $15-30M/yr contracts on top of all that. I can't see going $5-10M over the luxury tax cap preventing us from getting a much needed superstar that fills a massive hole on the roster though.

- On the flip side, the thing that worries me about this roster construction is that guys like Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, Rodriguez, and Bradley will all be either entering arbitration, seeking extensions, or eligible for free agency around the same time. They'll start getting more expensive with guys like Hanley, Sandoval and Porcello still around. Could cause a short term payroll issue in a couple of seasons.

- It's also pretty likely the luxury tax threshold increases with the next CBA. I'd put it at a near certainty. The Sox may feel confident enough in this to overspend a bit more than they would otherwise.

Regarding who to trade:

I'd hang on to Swihart for two reasons aside from him being friggin' amazing. 1) We don't know for sure if Christian Vazquez will be ready for 2016, and if he'll be the same player. 2) If Hanley is a nightmare at 1B and Travis Shaw fades away, Blake Swihart is certainly an option there.

I'd like for our OF to stay some combination of Betts, Bradley and Castillo. Unless we're blown away with an offer, I don't see the need to break up this trio and create another hole.

Similarly, Xander Bogaerts should not be moved. We're stuck with Hanley and Panda. Franchise faces Pedroia and Ortiz won't be traded either.

For the rotation, we have Porcello, Miley, Kelly, Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson, Wright. Good depth, but pretty bottom heavy. With Buch's uncertainty and the need for financial flexibility and reliable performance, I'm thinking more and more his option is declined.

If I'm looking to improve that group, I sign David Price for whatever it takes as long as it doesn't get stupid, and see how close an offer of Owens, Devers and Margot gets me to Sonny Gray. All are fine prospects, but with our would-be rotation (Price, Gray, Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez - maybe Kelly to the pen, or traded for a legit high-lev reliever), the young, cost controlled outfield (JBJ, Mookie, Rusney, with Benintendi coming eventually), and Moncada being an eventual candidate for 3B, those prospects are somewhat superfluous.

Hank Scorpio · Aug 31, 2015

richgedman'sghost said:
The Red Sox better stop winning because they are in danger of falling out of the bottom 10 in baseball. As long as they finish in the bottom 10 of teams, they do not have to worry about losing a draft pick if they sign a top tier free agent such as Price or Cueto...etc.. I count Philly Atlanta, MILWAUKEE, Florida, Cincinnati, Detroit as definite to finish below us. That is why I prefer watching a game like yesterday's : lots of progress by guys like JBJ, Betts and Rusney and a late loss by the bullpen.

Neither Price nor Cueto will cost a draft pick, because they were traded mid-season.

With this team's needs, the only reason to covet a top-10 pick is to have a top-10 pick. Next season's draft pool is a strong one.

PrometheusWakefield · Aug 31, 2015

Will Greinke cost a pick as a player exercising an opt out?

OCD SS · Aug 31, 2015

PrometheusWakefield said:
Will Greinke cost a pick as a player exercising an opt out?

Without having the specific language of his contract handy, I expect that he would; if a
qualifying offer was prohibited I'm sure we would've heard about it by now.

Opting out of a contract follows the same procedure as declaring free agency, so the corresponding options to the club would be in play unless his contract forbids it.

chrisfont9 · Aug 31, 2015

richgedman'sghost said:
That is why I prefer watching a game like yesterday's : lots of progress by guys like JBJ, Betts and Rusney and a late loss by the bullpen.

Yeah, I thought there was some agreement that this was how things would go. well, except for the next three nights anyway.

chrisfont9 · Aug 31, 2015

Hank Scorpio said:
Regarding the luxury tax cap:
[snip]
- On the flip side, the thing that worries me about this roster construction is that guys like Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, Rodriguez, and Bradley will all be either entering arbitration, seeking extensions, or eligible for free agency around the same time. They'll start getting more expensive with guys like Hanley, Sandoval and Porcello still around. Could cause a short term payroll issue in a couple of seasons.

True but by then you'll start seeing the guys in Greenville now start to arrive and you can pick a couple position players from your list to part with. Or so we hope anyway.

PrometheusWakefield · Aug 31, 2015

Hank Scorpio said:
- On the flip side, the thing that worries me about this roster construction is that guys like Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, Rodriguez, and Bradley will all be either entering arbitration, seeking extensions, or eligible for free agency around the same time. They'll start getting more expensive with guys like Hanley, Sandoval and Porcello still around. Could cause a short term payroll issue in a couple of seasons.

chrisfont9 said:
True but by then you'll start seeing the guys in Greenville now start to arrive and you can pick a couple position players from your list to part with. Or so we hope anyway.

I think this is an example of why future discounting is critical for baseball decisions.

Right now, it's pretty much impossible for us to know how what the financial situation of the 2019 Red Sox is going to look like. Is Boegarts now a star on a long term deal? Is JBJ Lorenzo Cain or Darren Lewis? What position is Betts even playing? Is Travis Shaw a thing, or not? Is Yuan Moncada a star, and if so, how did we integrate him into the infield? What happened with Margot and Devers and all the rest? How did the C situation shake out?

Our ability to know any of those things is really limited. On the other hand, we know for damn well certain that the 2016 Red Sox need an ace in the rotation, and IMO they need an ace and another front end starter. Not making a decision that you know for sure is going to help the team in the immediate future because we might have a hard time retaining all of our current talent 3-4 years down the road, when we also might not have a problem like that due to attrition or suckage or new talent replacing the old or who knows what, often doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sox offseason starting pitching target

Member

Member

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion

Homeland Security

Member

New Member

Member

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion

heart is two sizes two small

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

New Member

The North remembers

Member

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

heart is two sizes two small

New Member

The North remembers

Member

Member

New Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member