Sox sign Wacha

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
If they do or don't remains to be seen, but you have indeed concluded that IF THEY don't spend then it becomes legitimate to question ticket prices. While I may not agree with your entire post, this is the only part I chose to question because IMO it's just stupid. Also IMO you need to have a bit of faith in Bloom. You're all over the place when it comes to him. If you don't believe me, go back and read your posts leading up to and after the trade deadline.
Thank you for offering me your opinion that my opinion is stupid. Though it's my opinion that it's stupid to call someone else's opinion stupid. That would make us both stupid. It's nice to have company!

So ... it is possible to fundamentally respect someone, like the job they are doing, but criticize them in certain moments or aspects of their work. That seems kinda basic to me, and to not understand that .. well, I would call it stupid, but I think it's stupid to call other people stupid.

Look, I thought Bloom was too conservative at the deadline, and he's also been shy about contracts. This could be what he is, or it could a prelude to a more aggressive moment. Bloom has been great at adding "value" players like Kiké and Renfroe. He's rebuilding the farm. Super. I like those things! In other respects, like at the deadline, I didn't like what he did as much.

I kinda like, non-ironically, the band Chicago. They have several really fun songs. And they have some really shitty songs too. Does that make me all over the map? Do we have to be entirely FOR or entirely AGAINST? That seems stupid.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Yes eventually, but in the mean time Kike and Whitlock were two outstanding signings. Renfroe wasn't half bad either. Perhaps not what most see as top talent but three damn good signings. Another month of Schwarber would have been nice, but remind me again of what he cost? Robles... color me disappointed that he was the best arm that the Sox got at the deadline, but he had his moments. Iglesias anyone? Hell, even Garrett Richards had moments of brilliance when the Sox needed it most.
True enough. Eventually, though, most WS winning teams have a combination of homegrown guys, value add guys, and some stars signed to big contracts. It is a wise GM (or CEO or whatever) that can find that balance. SEE: Theo Epstein.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
True enough. Eventually, though, most WS winning teams have a combination of homegrown guys, value add guys, and some stars signed to big contracts. It is a wise GM (or CEO or whatever) that can find that balance. SEE: Theo Epstein.
I get your point…. But Theo had countless big mistakes. I’ll take it to another thread if requested but I’ll take Bloom at this point over Theo’s full Sox record.
Theo started great- and in a similar fashion- adding Mueller, Millar, Ortiz, etc… at great value- before becoming blinded by the Andersons, Crawfords, Gonzalezes, etc…
Cherington had a similar arc (albeit far more rapid).
I hope Bloom doesn’t follow that later path.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
True enough. Eventually, though, most WS winning teams have a combination of homegrown guys, value add guys, and some stars signed to big contracts. It is a wise GM (or CEO or whatever) that can find that balance. SEE: Theo Epstein.
Is Bloom not wise? Tell me that the Red Sox are not a team composed EXACTLY as you have described here. That Bloom hasn't been here long enough to cultivate homegrown guys isn't his fault, but I believe Boston's minor league system is rated much higher than it was when he took the helm just two short years ago. Value add guys...Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, Arroyo, Pivetta and the promotion of Houck. I think we can both agree that Bloom's done very well with this. Some stars signed to big contracts...Sale, Eovaldi, Martinez. Yep we have some of those as well. Sure Bloom didn't sign any of those guys, but they're here and part of that balance that WE BOTH see as essential and while he's yet to make the big splash it's Bloom who has made HUGE contributions to keeping that balance. Your starting outfield, 2B and 1B (five of your starting eight position players) are here because of Bloom and they fell one game short of a World Series appearance in just his second season here.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
I think there’s a general level of uncertainty in the direction that the team is headed. The core of the team is not locked up long term and it’s unclear what Bloom is going to do. Things are murkier with the sudden explosion in the FA marketplace, which the Sox need to play in in the short term due to a lack of tradeable assets.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Here's some positivity. I absolutely prefer Wacha over Perez or Richards at the bottom of the rotation.
Agreed. While admittedly drawing on incomplete information, Richards struck me as a bit more hardheaded than the way Wacha is described, in terms of changing an approach.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I think there’s a general level of uncertainty in the direction that the team is headed. The core of the team is not locked up long term and it’s unclear what Bloom is going to do. Things are murkier with the sudden explosion in the FA marketplace, which the Sox need to play in in the short term due to a lack of tradeable assets.
You seem determined to promote a narrative about Bloom's leadership and a pessimistic view of the team's future that is hardly supported by any actual facts. Is Bloom supposed to publish an open letter in the Globe or put up a billboard over the Pike outlining all of his specific plans in order to reassure you? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The fact that the team hasn't yet resolved the Bogaerts and Devers contracts does not mean those players are following Betts out the door. The Red Sox have the financial resources to ensure that both retire in a Boston uniform if they so choose. I expect that a new Devers contract will be announced before the 2022 season begins, but just because it hasn't been announced yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Rushing into the market and throwing money around to placate the fans and local sports media is almost certainly a fool's game.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
You seem determined to promote a narrative about Bloom's leadership and a pessimistic view of the team's future that is hardly supported by any actual facts. Is Bloom supposed to publish an open letter in the Globe or put up a billboard over the Pike outlining all of his specific plans in order to reassure you? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The fact that the team hasn't yet resolved the Bogaerts and Devers contracts does not mean those players are following Betts out the door. The Red Sox have the financial resources to ensure that both retire in a Boston uniform if they so choose. I expect that a new Devers contract will be announced before the 2022 season begins, but just because it hasn't been announced yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Rushing into the market and throwing money around to placate the fans and local sports media is almost certainly a fool's game.
Peak moment captured in this "Don't Fat Shame the Panda" article: https://www.overthemonster.com/2015/2/18/8059831/pablo-sandoval-red-sox-overweight-fat-spring-training-2015

(And our own signing thread on Sandoval is great: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-pablo-sandoval-agree-to-5-year-100-millionish-deal.6747/ )

 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
A source pointed to two factors — there surely were others — that helped the Red Sox believe Wacha was worth the $7 million investment.

  1. The Red Sox saw last year’s uptick in velocity and improved command as indications that Wacha’s health was finally back to normal. This weekend, Wacha talked about better understanding his body and improving his workout routine, and said it’s left him feeling “like a new man.” If that’s the case, it suggests more durability and reliability, which are valuable.
  2. The Red Sox believe there’s room to further optimize Wacha’s pitch mix. It’s not something they got into with him immediately, but it’s going to be addressed. Wacha got quite a bit better late last season by ditching his cutter and adding more curveballs and changeups. There might be more adjustments where that came from, and Wacha’s shown a willingness to make changes.
https://theathletic.com/2987357/2021/11/29/red-sox-laying-low-as-high-end-free-agents-sign-big-contracts-all-around-them/
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
I kinda like, non-ironically, the band Chicago. They have several really fun songs. And they have some really shitty songs too. Does that make me all over the map? Do we have to be entirely FOR or entirely AGAINST? That seems stupid.
No, you should definitely be against the band Chicago. That's a far easier question to answer than Bloom's performance so far.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Yes eventually, but in the mean time Kike and Whitlock were two outstanding signings. Renfroe wasn't half bad either. Perhaps not what most see as top talent but three damn good signings. Another month of Schwarber would have been nice, but remind me again of what he cost? Robles... color me disappointed that he was the best arm that the Sox got at the deadline, but he had his moments. Iglesias anyone? Hell, even Garrett Richards had moments of brilliance when the Sox needed it most.
Totally. Bloom is crafty at finding quality guys who are undervalued by the industry (and fans like me) ... still these things are not mutually exclusive ... gotta find those guys, have talented young players at the beginning of the pay scale, and then some sure thing stars who may be getting top dollar.... Virtually every Red Sox WS team has had this combination ....
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Is Bloom not wise? Tell me that the Red Sox are not a team composed EXACTLY as you have described here. That Bloom hasn't been here long enough to cultivate homegrown guys isn't his fault, but I believe Boston's minor league system is rated much higher than it was when he took the helm just two short years ago. Value add guys...Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, Arroyo, Pivetta and the promotion of Houck. I think we can both agree that Bloom's done very well with this. Some stars signed to big contracts...Sale, Eovaldi, Martinez. Yep we have some of those as well. Sure Bloom didn't sign any of those guys, but they're here and part of that balance that WE BOTH see as essential and while he's yet to make the big splash it's Bloom who has made HUGE contributions to keeping that balance. Your starting outfield, 2B and 1B (five of your starting eight position players) are here because of Bloom and they fell one game short of a World Series appearance in just his second season here.
You may be exactly right. The one thing we've yet to see Bloom do is spend. In prospect capital or dollars. I'm not advocating that he wildly spend, mind you. But eventually I hope he becomes more aggressive, without abandoning his ability to find value adds. My question - and it really is an open question - is he:

- being conservative for a while, to build resources back up, and then be aggressive at the right moment (a la Theo and the Cubs)?
- predisposed not to spend, overly cautious of moves that are risky or costly, as a character trait? (remember, all the big money contracts on the team were signed before Bloom arrived)
- purposefully trying to build a team in the model of TB, believing as a matter of philosophy that any big money long term deal is wasteful and a winner can be built without those contracts?

If either of the latter two are true, the team's payroll will gradually fall, maybe into the middle of the pack. I think that would be shame, not because I want the Red Sox to spend wildly and indiscriminately on tons free agents (I don't like teams like that), but because I think money is an advantage they have, and they should use it (wisely).
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,208
Bangkok
You may be exactly right. The one thing we've yet to see Bloom do is spend. In prospect capital or dollars. I'm not advocating that he wildly spend, mind you. But eventually I hope he becomes more aggressive, without abandoning his ability to find value adds. My question - and it really is an open question - is he:

- being conservative for a while, to build resources back up, and then be aggressive at the right moment (a la Theo and the Cubs)?
- predisposed not to spend, overly cautious of moves that are risky or costly, as a character trait? (remember, all the big money contracts on the team were signed before Bloom arrived)
- purposefully trying to build a team in the model of TB, believing as a matter of philosophy that any big money long term deal is wasteful and a winner can be built without those contracts?

If either of the latter two are true, the team's payroll will gradually fall, maybe into the middle of the pack. I think that would be shame, not because I want the Red Sox to spend wildly and indiscriminately on tons free agents (I don't like teams like that), but because I think money is an advantage they have, and they should use it (wisely).
Is there really any chance that our payroll falls back into the middle of the pack? Nothing indicates to me that we won't spend up to the CBT limit (and beyond if necessary). If he can run the team exactly the way TB does and just use money to fix TB's biggest problem. TB's problem is that very often they're forced to trade players that get into their arb years and get close to free agency. What I'm hoping Bloom does is to build a prospect pipeline, avoid big FA deals for now, and spend on players who have just graduated. TB might have the budget for one Wander-type deal. But we should have the budget for 4-5 of those deals. The biggest difficulty is graduating the high-quality level of prospect, but we're beginning to have some high FV type prospects in the system (Mayer, Yorke, Jordan, Casas). Even Houck and Whitlock are guys that we should be thinking about giving long-term deals to if they show they can stick in the rotation. When guys like Mayer graduate, what Bloom needs to do is to get them to commit. $100-150m each within a year or so of their graduation, and lock up 3-4 FA years. Then, we can spend money on short-term deals for FAs (like Scherzer and Verlander) who fit our timeline and don't cripple the payroll long-term.

Obviously this is not easy to do, sometimes guys just aren't willing to sign those kind of deals (Mookie). Even the Dodgers failed with Seager and Buehler. But, this should be the model that Bloom is working towards. The new CBA might affect this if pay is tilted more towards younger players, then you'll be paying closer to market value when they're young and there's less incentive for those players to sign long-term deals. Then there's no option but spending on free agency if you can't graduate prospects.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Last edited:

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,315
You may be exactly right. The one thing we've yet to see Bloom do is spend. In prospect capital or dollars. I'm not advocating that he wildly spend, mind you. But eventually I hope he becomes more aggressive, without abandoning his ability to find value adds. My question - and it really is an open question - is he:

- being conservative for a while, to build resources back up, and then be aggressive at the right moment (a la Theo and the Cubs)?
- predisposed not to spend, overly cautious of moves that are risky or costly, as a character trait? (remember, all the big money contracts on the team were signed before Bloom arrived)
- purposefully trying to build a team in the model of TB, believing as a matter of philosophy that any big money long term deal is wasteful and a winner can be built without those contracts?

If either of the latter two are true, the team's payroll will gradually fall, maybe into the middle of the pack. I think that would be shame, not because I want the Red Sox to spend wildly and indiscriminately on tons free agents (I don't like teams like that), but because I think money is an advantage they have, and they should use it (wisely).
Once again:
Bloom has a plan. Bloom is executing that plan in a very disciplined and consistent way.
Bloom is steadily improving the minor league system, steadily improving the 40-man roster, and steadily improving the big league club.
When Bloom believes that the Sox are ready to compete for a title, and the minor league system is sufficiently stocked, the plan calls for him to spend in both money and prospects. We know this because the Red Sox have always spent under John Henry, and we know this because Bloom’s mentor executed a nearly identical plan with the Dodgers. Friedman’s early years in LA were spent rebuilding and preserving assets, and then, when the club was ready to compete…well you know what happened then.

You are of course free to keep expressing your worries that Bloom will not spend, but there is simply nothing to suggest that those concerns are grounded in reality.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Once again:
Bloom has a plan. Bloom is executing that plan in a very disciplined and consistent way.
Bloom is steadily improving the minor league system, steadily improving the 40-man roster, and steadily improving the big league club.
When Bloom believes that the Sox are ready to compete for a title, and the minor league system is sufficiently stocked, the plan calls for him to spend in both money and prospects. We know this because the Red Sox have always spent under John Henry, and we know this because Bloom’s mentor executed a nearly identical plan with the Dodgers. Friedman’s early years in LA were spent rebuilding and preserving assets, and then, when the club was ready to compete…well you know what happened then.

You are of course free to keep expressing your worries that Bloom will not spend, but there is simply nothing to suggest that those concerns are grounded in reality.
So, basically "A" to my multiple choice ...
 

BravesField

New Member
Oct 27, 2021
252
Is it too early to start talking about an extension for Mr. Wacha? He's put up some good numbers for us, still has the shoulder issues, but that risk was there when Chaim signed him to begin with.

So we have the money, and maybe more important, we have the medicals. Wacha could deliver 20+ starts for us. I can't even wrap my head around what it would take to re-sign him, but a lot of teams will probably be in on him.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
Market rate for Wacha will probably be a bit too much, particularly if they pick up Paxton's extension.

I'd rather they spend their dollars replacing JDM/Xander/Kike/Pham
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Given the money off the books they could give him a QO and essentially have bim on a one year deal.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Given the money off the books they could give him a QO and essentially have bim on a one year deal.
That seems rich. He's been fantastic, but durability is a concern, and he might be benefiting from a decent amount of luck this year -- 2.44 ERA and 3.70 ERA. Who says no to 30/3, right now?
 

jwbasham84

New Member
Jul 26, 2022
132
South Bend, IN
Why would they pay him $18M? I know we have a lot of money available, but Wacha at $18M would be a massive overpay. He's pitched well this year, but still missed a month and a half due to injury. Additionally, what spot in the rotation is he taking. Presumably you have Sale, Paxton, Pivetta and Whitlock at 1-4. We have Winckowski, Crawford, Seabold, and possibly Bello (mid-season?0 available for #5.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Is it too early to start talking about an extension for Mr. Wacha?
Thanks for bumping this so I could re-read the excellent Radon string kicked off by DDA.

Also some random 2021 quotes. The consensus was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. We can blame Covid-gumpiness I suppose:
This is just puzzling.
This is just another Perez/Richards type of signing. Wacha had a worse ERA but better FIP than either of those guys last year so I think that level of performance is about what we can expect.
On the surface, seems like a reasonable depth pick-up where he could play a role similar to early season Whitlock (low leverage long relief), only with the ability to jump into the rotation if needed.
I absolutely hate this deal if this is the salary
It was almost inevitable. Hopefully the last 40 innings of the season were indicative of his upside for 2022.
Not sure I see the angle on this one. I’d have preferred to bring back Garrett Richards.
He’s going to be bad and we won’t get to face him. Double whammy. Don’t like this move, especially if incentives get it closer to $5M.
If he hits the incentives he's probably been good and worth the $5m, if not this is Andriese, Richards, Perez. Same dart, different name that is all.
Wacha is a Jonny Gomes kind of signing. Overpay by a couple mil early in the offseason for a league-average/role-playing contributor as insurance against not signing anyone. Then later you can go hunting for bigger fish with less of a glaring hole and less desperation, or trade from more of a surplus.
Shocked. Thrilled. Can't believe we got him.
Seriously though, hoping he figured something out down the stretch. Not overtly optimistic, but I’m wrong constantly.
It's not my money.
Hard to feel excited or angry about this one, it’s….something!
This guy stinks. SMH.
I’m with the majority here. Scrap heap guy. If it’s $3m, I get it. If it’s $5m, I hate it. Starting pitching depth is important but he’s not even a #5.
These feels like Garrett Richards re-deux. He's not going to sink our roster but he's probably not going to help us out much either.
$5 million for Wacha (if we assume that’s the number) is a low-risk, high-upside signing that will provide depth for the rotation. No idea why people are grumpy about this.
I think people are grumpy because Wacha isn’t very good. Regardless of the money.
It’s a depth signing that doesn’t impact one way or the other the ability to sign better players or get in the way of minor league talent. I don’t understand the hatrid some have. They aren’t relying on him to be a top of the rotation guy. If he can earn a spot, it keeps one of Whitlock or Houck in the pen.
Someone has to be an innings eater/mop up guy who you can plug in as a swing man type. I wouldn't expect him to displace anyone. They need lots of innings from lots of pitchers.
A perfectly cromulent Martin Perez replacement with a glimmer of upside coming from past history of #3 starter performance and the improved results after the change in pitch mix in August. If he's the best starter they acquire this off-season, I'd still be pretty disappointed, but I'd also be very surprised.
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach.
I think the flyer on Wacha is similar to the one on Richards last year. Worth a shot.
Wacha is at least a decent bet to approximate Matz’s production at a fraction of the overall cost, which seems like a smart approach when it comes to what will probably end up as one of the lower-tier pitching acquisitions the Sox make this off-season.
Hopefully the Red Sox can sign Radon for a bargain basement price.
AAAAAANNND. . .

I’ll just have to trust in Chaim.
You - Look at you.


Punchlines as of today:

Martin Perez - 23 GS, ERA 2.79, ERA+ 140. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezma02.shtml (Currently leads majors in 142 IP)
(1 year, $4M)

Carlos Rodon - 23 GS, ERA 2.95, ERA+ 138. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodonca01.shtml
(2 years, $40M, player optout)

Michael Wacha - 14 GS, ERA 2.44, ERA+ 173. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wachami01.shtml (77 IP).
(1 year, $7M)

Steven Matz - 10 GS, ERA 5.70, ERA+ 67. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matzst01.shtml
(4 years, $44M)

Garret Richards - 2 GS, 29 in relief, ERA 5.53, ERA+ 71. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richaga01.shtml
(1 year, $5.5M, + 1 yr team opt. 5.5M)

Matt Andrese - remains unsigned? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/andrima01.shtml
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Why would they pay him $18M? I know we have a lot of money available, but Wacha at $18M would be a massive overpay. He's pitched well this year, but still missed a month and a half due to injury. Additionally, what spot in the rotation is he taking. Presumably you have Sale, Paxton, Pivetta and Whitlock at 1-4. We have Winckowski, Crawford, Seabold, and possibly Bello (mid-season?0 available for #5.
I think the benefit of re-signing Wacha (to a reasonable salary) is simply depth. The rotation you lay out is potentially solid on paper but you can't count on it holding together through 162 games. You can't really count on any rotation to hold together all year. I'd rather see them have "too much" pitching than not enough. And while Winckowski and Crawford have been solid in their depth roles, I'd rather keep them there for another year than elevate them (even if it is to the #5 spot) and possibly expose them as not quite good enough for a full season.
 

jwbasham84

New Member
Jul 26, 2022
132
South Bend, IN
I am actually in the camp of Wacha is someone we should keep around as you said, at a reasonable salary. I just find it a misuse of resources to sign him to a QO at $18m+. What would the opinion be of a "reasonable" salary? 2/$18-20M? I would hesitate to go three years based on his durability issues...
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Thanks for bumping this so I could re-read the excellent Radon string kicked off by DDA.

Also some random 2021 quotes. The consensus was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. We can blame Covid-gumpiness I suppose:


























AAAAAANNND. . .



You - Look at you.


Punchlines as of today:

Martin Perez - 23 GS, ERA 2.79, ERA+ 140. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezma02.shtml (Currently leads majors in 142 IP)
(1 year, $4M)

Carlos Rodon - 23 GS, ERA 2.95, ERA+ 138. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodonca01.shtml
(2 years, $40M, player optout)

Michael Wacha - 14 GS, ERA 2.44, ERA+ 173. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wachami01.shtml (77 IP).
(1 year, $7M)

Steven Matz - 10 GS, ERA 5.70, ERA+ 67. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matzst01.shtml
(4 years, $44M)

Garret Richards - 2 GS, 29 in relief, ERA 5.53, ERA+ 71. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richaga01.shtml
(1 year, $5.5M, + 1 yr team opt. 5.5M)

Matt Andrese - remains unsigned? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/andrima01.shtml
Not certain why I’m grouped with the underwhelmed, since I called it a “low-risk, high-upside signing.”

Very happy with Wacha.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Not certain why I’m grouped with the underwhelmed, since I called it a “low-risk, high-upside signing.”

Very happy with Wacha.
"Underwhelmed" was the consensus - not the opinion of all posters. I just grabbed a bunch of one-liners and quoted them to get the general tenor. I probably skipped a few.

Sometimes the overall reaction is worth going back to look at.

Wacha has certainly delivered more than I personally expected - I thought he'd be a very fungible #4 or 5.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
"Underwhelmed" was the consensus - not the opinion of all posters. I just grabbed a bunch of one-liners and quoted them to get the general tenor. I probably skipped a few.

Sometimes the overall reaction is worth going back to look at.

Wacha has certainly delivered more than I personally expected - I thought he'd be a very fungible #4 or 5.
I like these threads a lot more than the others where we properly call a move or non-move a bad one. A definite success for Wacha/Chaim this year and one I absolutely did not see coming. Like, at all.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
Wait a minute. Wacha has certainly far outperformed low expectations, but it seems like only a few days everybody was lamenting how injuries had decimated this team, particularly the rotation, and knocked us out of contention. Now we should sign a major contributor to this situation (an entirely predictable outcome) to a long term deal?

At the right price, sure, but be prepared for more Conor Seabold-type starts if Wacha is supposed to be part of the rotation.
 
Last edited:

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
I like these threads a lot more than the others where we properly call a move or non-move a bad one. A definite success for Wacha/Chaim this year and one I absolutely did not see coming. Like, at all.
I'm not a huge fan of calling out people for posting inaccurate opinions/guesses. Patting yourself on the back for sticking the landing on an unpopular opinion? Hell yeah. Let 'em know. A little self-congratulation never killed anyone.

But highlighting people that were wrong in their opinions? I just feel like it makes people more cautious in being open when we need people to be less cautious.

I also realize that RR wasn't trying to deride anyone for the posts, but just show the tenor of the environment on here at the time. So, not a direct shot at him. I think the move was seen pretty universally as "low risk/medium reward", but turns out he's blossomed into the pitcher people thought he might be when he was a pretty well respected prospect.

I feel that guys like Wacha - talented players who get lost, and then find themself later in their career - tend to go in only two directions when it comes to their next contract. Either they want to stick around with the club where they found success because they attribute some level of that success to the team (coaches, environment, whatever). That usually means a multiyear deal at below market value. They get the comfort of a few years in the location where they "found it", the team gets value in the contract and assumes less risk than other suitors on the market will have to take.

Or they go all out for top dollar to maximize what they have left of their career (Andrew Miller style).

I wouldn't fault the player in either direction, but I wouldn't mind getting a #2 starter locked in for 3 more years at a reasonable contract, even if there is a risk association.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
I, for one, don't mind being called out. I felt like he was not a very good pitcher, and have all the numbers to back that up. I mean...they're out there for all to see. When they signed him, there was NO indication AT ALL that he'd pitch this well. Now, the season isn't over yet, and his final numbers may look a lot less like an ace than they do now. But I'm thrilled to have been wrong about him thus far.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,720
Wacha finished strong. Here’s a write up on him from a larger piece by Aaron Gleeman of the Athletic:

Tampa Bay didn’t really fix Wacha, who has a 5.11 ERA since 2019 and a 4.62 ERA since 2016, but the Rays may have unlocked some upside late in the year when they convinced him to ditch a high-usage cutter that had been clobbered all season. Wacha shelved it in mid-August and then finished with a 3.20 ERA and 45-to-7 strikeout-to-walk ratio in his final 39 innings.
Looks like he has continued to throw the cutter less than in previous seasons-- he's thrown it 14.4% of the time this year, compared to 24.6% last year.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/michael-wacha/14078/stats?position=P

He's thrown 116 innings since he made the change to cut the cutter, with a 2.72 ERA, with 104 Ks and 30 walks.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
I don't totally understand what expected ERA is.... but wasn't there a lot of concern about that with Wacha earlier in the season? There was some indications that he was waaaay over performing and his actual ERA was likely to start climbing. Pivetta's IIRC was actually looking legit though.... so who knows