What does 2023 look like?

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,534
Maine
28 blown saves (out of 65 opportunities.) Second worst in AL. Eight fewer blown saves and they’d have a wildcard spot.
That's not how blown saves work, really. They only indicate a lead was lost, not that the game ended in a loss. The Sox were 6-19 this year in games in which at least one blown save was recorded. Obviously not great, but the fact that the team that had the most blown saves is a playoff team suggests it's not all that meaningful to overall W/L records.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,832
Michigan
That's not how blown saves work, really. They only indicate a lead was lost, not that the game ended in a loss. The Sox were 6-19 this year in games in which at least one blown save was recorded. Obviously not great, but the fact that the team that had the most blown saves is a playoff team suggests it's not all that meaningful to overall W/L records.
Good point. Still, the bullpen was this team’s biggest weakness.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,534
Maine
Good point. Still, the bullpen was this team’s biggest weakness.
No question it was a weakness. There were a few games in which the pen blew a lead (and got dinged with a blown save) early, then held the opposing team down the rest of the way such that the offense could have come back but didn't. Tough to totally blame the bullpen for a loss because they turned a 2-1 lead into a 3-2 deficit in the 6th, and then the game ended 3-2.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,242
It feels to me like there’s a sentiment towards next year being a “do over” season; bringing back most of the free agents, hoping that a return to health leads to better performance for guys like Sale, Kike, etc. and integrating some younger players where possible (Casas, Wong, etc.). Maybe a few medium to big moves to address RF / SS / DH? The team announcing they are returning the entire coaching staff leads me to think that this may be a direction they go in…and while it may raise the ire of many, if the organization truly thinks that much of this season was derailed by injuries and bad luck that are not likely to repeat, than maybe it’s not so crazy an idea?
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,832
Michigan
It feels to me like there’s a sentiment towards next year being a “do over” season; bringing back most of the free agents, hoping that a return to health leads to better performance for guys like Sale, Kike, etc. and integrating some younger players where possible (Casas, Wong, etc.). Maybe a few medium to big moves to address RF / SS / DH? The team announcing they are returning the entire coaching staff leads me to think that this may be a direction they go in…and while it may raise the ire of many, if the organization truly thinks that much of this season was derailed by injuries and bad luck that are not likely to repeat, than maybe it’s not so crazy an idea?
It’s not a crazy idea, but it will make for a very boring winter.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,534
Maine
It feels to me like there’s a sentiment towards next year being a “do over” season; bringing back most of the free agents, hoping that a return to health leads to better performance for guys like Sale, Kike, etc. and integrating some younger players where possible (Casas, Wong, etc.). Maybe a few medium to big moves to address RF / SS / DH? The team announcing they are returning the entire coaching staff leads me to think that this may be a direction they go in…and while it may raise the ire of many, if the organization truly thinks that much of this season was derailed by injuries and bad luck that are not likely to repeat, than maybe it’s not so crazy an idea?
Bringing back the coaching staff certainly leads one to believe they see the 2022 season as mostly down to injuries and bad luck. Not so sure about the notion of bringing back the free agents though. The free agent market isn't exactly deep this winter so bringing back certain players might simply be a matter of choosing the known versus the unknown among otherwise equivalent options, especially if it's on shorter term deals (i.e. better Eovaldi on a 1/18 than Syndergaard on a 3/55).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,422
Why did they even give White that deal? His minor league numbers were nothing great. It's not like it was a ton of money, but still.

6/24 with 3 club options at 10, 11 and 12.5.

I would give that to Casas right now. If he sucks, so be it. 6/24? That's not going to prevent the Sox from doing anything. Having Casas locked up for 9 years/47.5m is worth the risk imo.

Hell, give it to Mayer right now too. I'm serious. 6/24 is nothing... and then 3 cheap team options with 500k buyouts each year? All day, everyday. 100 times out of 100.

edit: well, not if the clock would start on Mayer before he reached the Majors. So I guess the day he debuts.

I think Casas and Meyer reject that 100 times out of 100.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think Casas and Meyer reject that 100 times out of 100.
Yeah, I'd think so. White was smart to take it, though. I don't get how his minor league numbers warranted a long term contract. He was old at each level and his numbers were decent but not spectacular. Was ranked in the 50s in all of baseball as a prospect. It would kinda be like offering Rafaela that deal. I like Rafaela, think he may be an above average CF. He's still not the type I'd lock up without seeing in the Majors for 6 years.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
Yeah, I really don't see the need to subdivide this into one 76-game subset or another 20-game subset. They had a thin rotation that was wracked by injuries and a dumpster fire of a bullpen. That's true regardless of exactly who they lost to and when.
Did they really have a thin rotation? Or did it just look thin because Sale and Paxton ended up giving them 6 total innings and because they needed to go 4 deep at the same time from the Worcester rotation?
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,832
Michigan
Did they really have a thin rotation? Or did it just look thin because Sale and Paxton ended up giving them 6 total innings and because they needed to go 4 deep at the same time from the Worcester rotation?
What’s the difference between the rotation being thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured and looking thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured?

To make the playoffs, a team needs an ace. To succeed in the playoffs, a team needs two aces. This year, the Sox had no aces.

That’s why I’m more interested in what the team does to solidify its starting rotation this winter than whether they resign X, extend Devers, or fill the holes in RF and DH.

Sale and Paxton are still question marks, not pitchers you can confidently slot into the #1 starter role. If the Sox acquire a FA ace (Rodon, deGrom, Verlander, or other) and Sale or Paxton return to top form, that’d be great.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,534
Maine
What’s the difference between the rotation being thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured and looking thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured?
Frankly, I thought the rotation had some depth even before considering Sale and Paxton. Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, and Whitlock were the top six to start the year, and performed fairly well while healthy (high water mark of 11 games over .500 and second place on June 26). By the time they got to mid-July, four of those guys were on the IL and one was entrenched in the bullpen. Any rotation is going to look thin when it's running out #9, #10 and #11 on their depth charts to make multiple starts in the middle of the season. Doesn't mean it was thinly built to start with, which is I think the argument scotty was trying to counter.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
What’s the difference between the rotation being thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured and looking thin because Sale, Paxton and Eovaldi were injured?
One is something you can blame the team for the other isn't really. The rotation Bloom built wasn't thin, but any rotation in baseball would look thin if they had as many injuries as the Sox ended up having at once.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
30,731
Alamogordo
Sale and Paxton are still question marks, not pitchers you can confidently slot into the #1 starter role. If the Sox acquire a FA ace (Rodon, deGrom, Verlander, or other) and Sale or Paxton return to top form, that’d be great.
You mean the Rodon who has thrown over 150 IP twice in 8 years? Or the deGrom who has thrown less than 100 in the last two years? Or the Verlander who is 8 million years old and had TJS last year?

I'm sure this comes across as way snarkier than I want it to be, but the only reason any of those three will be available for decentish money is because they are injury risks. It's this reason that developing young and effective starting pitching is really important, and that is something that the Red Sox, for whatever reasons, have largely been unable to do recently. It looks like they might be on the horizon of remedying that, with Bello looking great, and a few other interesting arms in the pipeline, but one of the reasons that the team has been so up and down over the last 15 years is an absolute failure to develop a reliable ace internally. Because of that they had to send away prospects or give out huge deal to SP's who, when they get injured for extended periods of time (and/or over and over and over) tank the season.

The fact that, with Bello, Walter, Mata, Ward and to a lesser extent guys like Winckowski and Seabold, the Sox look to be in better shape than they have since the mid-2000's, makes me confident that giving Bloom at least two more years of rope is the right call (and yes, I know your post wasn't calling for Bloom's head, so this last sentence is a bit extraneous.. I apologize for that).
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,668
the only reason any of those three will be available for decentish money is because they are injury risks.
Kind of, but also in reality all three of those guys are going to get massive deals this winter anyway, maybe not all in length but in AAV those three will get a minimum of $80M combined IMO.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
Kind of, but also in reality all three of those guys are going to get massive deals this winter anyway, maybe not all in length but in AAV those three will get a minimum of $80M combined IMO.
They will. And when one of your top rotation guys is sucking up $30M and can’t be counted on to stay healthy…. The last thing to do is throw $30M at another like him. That’s why, despite their issues, the Hill and Wacha (and although a flop… Paxton too) type signings are key at least until there’s 2-3 young cost controlled healthy guys in the rotation that can provide what Hill, etc. did.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,116
Rogers Park
It feels to me like there’s a sentiment towards next year being a “do over” season; bringing back most of the free agents, hoping that a return to health leads to better performance for guys like Sale, Kike, etc. and integrating some younger players where possible (Casas, Wong, etc.). Maybe a few medium to big moves to address RF / SS / DH? The team announcing they are returning the entire coaching staff leads me to think that this may be a direction they go in…and while it may raise the ire of many, if the organization truly thinks that much of this season was derailed by injuries and bad luck that are not likely to repeat, than maybe it’s not so crazy an idea?
I’d be quite disappointed by such an off-season. I’m expecting a new (as in, acquired from outside the org via FA or trade) corner OF, a new starting C, one or maybe two new relievers, and a new DH. If Xander leaves, I expect a new middle infielder, too.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,847
San Diego
I’d be quite disappointed by such an off-season. I’m expecting a new (as in, acquired from outside the org via FA or trade) corner OF, a new starting C, one or maybe two new relievers, and a new DH. If Xander leaves, I expect a new middle infielder, too.
Since the trade deadline, Boston catchers collectively ranked #2 in avg and #7 in OPS in baseball. Not sure how much better you could ask for.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Since the trade deadline, Boston catchers collectively ranked #2 in avg and #7 in OPS in baseball. Not sure how much better you could ask for.
I'm not sure how sustainable that might be, but I'm more than OK going with McGuire and Wongers. Both players played well sharing duties behind the plate and IMO, with both guys in house and controlled for a few more seasons I think that resources are best spent elsewhere.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Since the trade deadline, Boston catchers collectively ranked #2 in avg and #7 in OPS in baseball. Not sure how much better you could ask for.
The cheap young guys at catcher, first, relief pitcher, SP4 and 5, and (to a lesser extent) LF will allow us to spend big to keep SS elite and get an elite right fielder and perhaps an elite starter as well.

If we can get better than average performance out of those inexpensive positions, so much the better.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,242
Wong was awful down the stretch; McGuire was great but had a BABIP 100 points above his career norm. Going into the season with those two as the catching tandem is risky but I guess it depends on what they do elsewhere in the lineup. But if they are looking to add power; that duo seems likely to hit for less pop than the catchers did this year.
 

themactavish

New Member
Aug 4, 2010
78
St. Cloud, MN
Wong was awful down the stretch; McGuire was great but had a BABIP 100 points above his career norm. Going into the season with those two as the catching tandem is risky but I guess it depends on what they do elsewhere in the lineup. But if they are looking to add power; that duo seems likely to hit for less pop than the catchers did this year.
For a fellow who transitioned from infield to catcher, Wong often seemed pretty clumsy behind the plate in the late season, missing blocks and pitches that just didn't seem that hard to catch. He looked much better to me earlier. I figured him for a decent defensive guy, but the late season raised doubts.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,116
Rogers Park
Wong was awful down the stretch; McGuire was great but had a BABIP 100 points above his career norm. Going into the season with those two as the catching tandem is risky but I guess it depends on what they do elsewhere in the lineup. But if they are looking to add power; that duo seems likely to hit for less pop than the catchers did this year.
Here we agree precisely.

Wong actually had considerable power in the minors — 15 HR and 20 2B in 355 AAA PA is pretty good. (We also saw him hit a 475 foot HR or whatever that was — over everything at the deep end of the Monster in center left.) So there is real upside there if he can make some adjustments. That said, I'm a bit wary of Wong as a defensive player because he made a few completely unhinged throws to bases that were only saved from being the worst defensive plays of the season by Jarren Duran's weird mental lapse.

McGuire has been a great addition, even if I would expect something closer to his .680ish career OPS going forward. Full speed ahead with him.

I see two options. One is what others in the thread are saying: McGuire and Wong are affordable, controllable and decent. It ain't broke; don't fix it. That's certainly defensible given how many needs we have. I just learned (via the Sox Prospects podcast) that Ronaldo Hernandez has one more option due to some loophole I don't fully understand, so he can be a third catcher in AAA. Then we need to bring in another minor league FA type for depth.

Option two leaves Wong and Hernandez in AAA as depth, and pairs McGuire with a more offensive-oriented catcher like Willson Contreras on the big league club. Willson's .250/.350/.450-type line would really lengthen the lineup. He could also get at bats as the RH side of a DH platoon, maybe.

Depending on what we do with the rest of the roster, I could see either option being a good move. If we're splashing out a lot of money on a starter or a corner outfielder, maybe we go cheap at catcher.

But people should remember that we have a ton of payroll flexibility now. Before arb raises, we are $112m under the threshold for next year. Devers (pending extension talks) and Pivetta are probably in line for decent bumps, but I don't think McGuire's or Chang's or Cordero's arbitration number is going to blow up our budget. After arb, we probably still have $95m of room. And then we have very little in the way of salary commitments the next few years: it's pretty much Sale and Story. I'm hoping we add a few more to that this offseason.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,818
The cheap young guys at catcher, first, relief pitcher, SP4 and 5, and (to a lesser extent) LF will allow us to spend big to keep SS elite and get an elite right fielder and perhaps an elite starter as well.
Unfortunately the only elite RF on the FA market is a player unlikely to ever sign with Boston unless they really overpay him. It’s a lot easier to get high end offensive production out of a LF than right. Guys like Verdugo and Benintendi just aren’t terribly valuable. During Ben10’s first run in Boston they could live with the mediocre LF production because they had an elite offensive and defensive cost controlled RF.

As far as the ‘23 and ‘24 Sox are concerned, that guy isn’t on the horizon at the moment unless they’re willing to pay Judge the $40-$45 million per year it will require to play (in all likelihood) 130-140 games per year (he’s played 702 out of 870 games since 2017, which works out to 131 games out of 162). You’ll get a few productive years out of it, but that deal will go underwater quickly. So I’m hoping that it’s the Yankees that give him that 9/360 deal. Because I really don’t want to see a Marcelo Mayer/Judge to the Dodgers for the 2028 version of Alex Verdugo, Bacon Bits, and a suitcase full of cash trade.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,238
Bangkok
Benintendi's a 3-win player, I think he would be valuable for next year. I would be in favor of a 4/$75m or something like that for Benintendi. He can hit in Fenway, he gets along with Cora, his statcast numbers are fine. There's a lot to like. He fills a hole in the outfield and hopefully won't much more expensive than my hypothetical contract. We would get him for his age 28-31 seasons. He would also benefit from the shift being gone. There's really a lot to like about signing him. On a $/win metric, he would be very similar to Judge ($5-6m/win).
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,668
Benintendi's a 3-win player, I think he would be valuable for next year. I would be in favor of a 4/$75m or something like that for Benintendi. He can hit in Fenway, he gets along with Cora, his statcast numbers are fine. There's a lot to like. He fills a hole in the outfield and hopefully won't much more expensive than my hypothetical contract. We would get him for his age 28-31 seasons. He would also benefit from the shift being gone. There's really a lot to like about signing him. On a $/win metric, he would be very similar to Judge ($5-6m/win).
So Benintendi in LF and Verdugo stays in RF? Benintendi has never played RF, exclusively a LF since a bit of CF with BOS in 2019, but he is a LF.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,238
Bangkok
So Benintendi in LF and Verdugo stays in RF? Benintendi has never played RF, exclusively a LF since a bit of CF with BOS in 2019, but he is a LF.
Yes. Verdugo was -1 OAA in RF in half the innings as LF, where he was -5 OAA.

A 4-5 year deal for Benintendi wouldn’t block any prospects, he’s a high-floor player whose statcast numbers are fine. No shift wOBA is .363 while shift wOBA is .318, so he’ll be a better hitter next year without the shift.

If Ceddane hits well next year and is up by July then we would have two plus defenders (him and Kike) in the outfield, we would also two LHBs and two RHBs, giving better pinch hitting options and platoon advantages.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
More likely to see a trade for an OF’er with 2-3 years remaining. But…. I really didn’t follow other teams this past season so I have no idea who’s even on the market or who the Sox could trade other than Crawford, Duran, Winckowski etc…. So nothing terribly valuable
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Benintendi's a 3-win player, I think he would be valuable for next year. I would be in favor of a 4/$75m or something like that for Benintendi. He can hit in Fenway, he gets along with Cora, his statcast numbers are fine. There's a lot to like. He fills a hole in the outfield and hopefully won't much more expensive than my hypothetical contract. We would get him for his age 28-31 seasons. He would also benefit from the shift being gone. There's really a lot to like about signing him. On a $/win metric, he would be very similar to Judge ($5-6m/win).
Is Benintendi really worth nearly $20 M per year?
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
960
(B)Austin Texas
Is Benintendi really worth nearly $20 M per year?
I agree with Apisith that Ben10 might be a decent fit. But I cannot see the Sox or anyone giving him a contract near that. It's peculiar how the $/WAR is applied. It is not a straight linear relationship (e.g. the 6 WAR player is not getting $54M per year). Benny has had a couple good years. I could see him getting 4 years, $48-60M, but not from the Sox. I too think they'll either trade for someone or sign someone on a one year make good contract.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
I agree with Apisith that Ben10 might be a decent fit. But I cannot see the Sox or anyone giving him a contract near that. It's peculiar how the $/WAR is applied. It is not a straight linear relationship (e.g. the 6 WAR player is not getting $54M per year). Benny has had a couple good years. I could see him getting 4 years, $48-60M, but not from the Sox. I too think they'll either trade for someone or sign someone on a one year make good contract.
I’m curious who you’d target in trades and for whom? There’s some Unexpendable prospects/young players…. But obviously for the right deal anyone could be available. The idea tossed around here for Yellich is interesting to me but with lots of red flags.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
960
(B)Austin Texas
I’m curious who you’d target in trades and for whom? There’s some Unexpendable prospects/young players…. But obviously for the right deal anyone could be available. The idea tossed around here for Yellich is interesting to me but with lots of red flags.
Also tossed around has been Kepler and I like him better than Yelich. I messed around with the MLB trade evaluator app (first time!). One even trade is Kepler ($5.6M) for Jimenez (2.2), Hosmer (3.1!), and Dalbec (0.5). Not sure what the Twins need.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
Also tossed around has been Kepler and I like him better than Yelich. I messed around with the MLB trade evaluator app (first time!). One even trade is Kepler ($5.6M) for Jimenez (2.2), Hosmer (3.1!), and Dalbec (0.5). Not sure what the Twins need.
I don't know much about Kepler.... but a .660 OPS in '22 isn't exactly exciting. I'd rather take another chance on Duran and hope that he can develop some defensively while his actual offensive skills will play up better with the new shift ban.
Yelich has been an elite talent and while he's not at that level, he had a better overall year than Kepler. He's older... but obviously much, much more expensive. Tossed around in the Yelich discussion was using the Sox financial flexibility to get one of their great pitchers. A Duran and Crawford offer with Milwaukee absorbing $5M per on Yelich?
I don't know... .I don't know all the intricacies of trades and end up making an ass out of myself. I mean... why won't Milwaukee just give us their two best starting pitchers and we give them Duran and Dalbec!??!?!!?!? (joke)
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,689
I don't know much about Kepler.... but a .660 OPS in '22 isn't exactly exciting. I'd rather take another chance on Duran and hope that he can develop some defensively while his actual offensive skills will play up better with the new shift ban.
Yelich has been an elite talent and while he's not at that level, he had a better overall year than Kepler. He's older... but obviously much, much more expensive. Tossed around in the Yelich discussion was using the Sox financial flexibility to get one of their great pitchers. A Duran and Crawford offer with Milwaukee absorbing $5M per on Yelich?
I don't know... .I don't know all the intricacies of trades and end up making an ass out of myself. I mean... why won't Milwaukee just give us their two best starting pitchers and we give them Duran and Dalbec!??!?!!?!? (joke)
I don't think anyone was making the case for acquiring Yelich qua Yelich. But if Woodruff or Burnes is involved, I think you've got to listen.

As for Yelich and Kepler, the biggest difference is their defense. Metrics suggest Kepler is much better in right field than Yelich (or Verdugo) are in either corner.

But as for their hitting, which of the two stat lines do you prefer going forward?

2021-22:
Player A: 13.8 BB%, 24.0 K% | .128 ISO, .325 BABIP | 56.9 GB%, 23.3 FB% | 9.6 SwStr%, 77.4 Contact% | .293 wOBA w/2B in OF grass* | .338 expected wOBA
Player B: 11.0 BB%, 17.3 K% | .163 ISO, .237 BABIP | 41.4 GB%, 39.4 FB% | 8.7 SwStr%, 80.7 Contact% | .186 wOBA w/2B in OF grass* | .343 expected wOBA
*This kind of strategic defensive positioning is no longer possible in 2023
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
880
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Benintendi's a 3-win player, I think he would be valuable for next year. I would be in favor of a 4/$75m or something like that for Benintendi. He can hit in Fenway, he gets along with Cora, his statcast numbers are fine. There's a lot to like. He fills a hole in the outfield and hopefully won't much more expensive than my hypothetical contract. We would get him for his age 28-31 seasons. He would also benefit from the shift being gone. There's really a lot to like about signing him. On a $/win metric, he would be very similar to Judge ($5-6m/win).
Please excuse the incredulous tone of my response to this post, but do you really think that Chaim would dole out 4 years and $75M for a guy who he deemed to be fungible a couple of years ago and traded away when he was making a fraction of that cost? That defies belief, to put it bluntly.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
I don't think anyone was making the case for acquiring Yelich qua Yelich. But if Woodruff or Burnes is involved, I think you've got to listen.

As for Yelich and Kepler, the biggest difference is their defense. Metrics suggest Kepler is much better in right field than Yelich (or Verdugo) are in either corner.

But as for their hitting, which of the two stat lines do you prefer going forward?

2021-22:
Player A: 13.8 BB%, 24.0 K% | .128 ISO, .325 BABIP | 56.9 GB%, 23.3 FB% | 9.6 SwStr%, 77.4 Contact% | .293 wOBA w/2B in OF grass* | .338 expected wOBA
Player B: 11.0 BB%, 17.3 K% | .163 ISO, .237 BABIP | 41.4 GB%, 39.4 FB% | 8.7 SwStr%, 80.7 Contact% | .186 wOBA w/2B in OF grass* | .343 expected wOBA
*This kind of strategic defensive positioning is no longer possible in 2023
I’m assuming the spoiler here is Yellich is A and Kepler B???
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,689
I’m assuming the spoiler here is Yellich is A and Kepler B???
Spoiler alert!

Exactly, yeah. Yelich has the star power and name recognition, but I'd argue they're roughly equals at the plate right now, which gives Kepler a huge advantage due to defense and salary.

The Red Sox currently employ two of the top 10 groundball-hittingest lefties in MLB (Hosmer and Verdugo). Yelich's ground ball rate is second in all of baseball. I think he'll get a little bump with the banned shift, but this study suggests Kepler would get a bigger bump.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,884
The back of your computer
It can!
- They had 34 starts go to Winckowski, Crawford, Davis and Seabold. In July, when it all fell apart, their only original SP still available was Nick Pivetta.
- They played 54 different guys at some point.
- They played Franchy Cordero at five different actual fielding positions, not including the one to which he is best suited (DH). He picked up his glove and walked on the field intending to use it in 80 games.
- They gave 90 innings to Taylor Danish, Philips Valdez, Hansel Robles and Jeurys Familia. After "bullpen ace" Josh Schreiber, their next two most-used guys were Ryan Brasier and Austin Davis, with a cumulative ERA+ of 75.

They finished 8 games out of the final wild card.
Now do the same analysis for each of the wild card teams to see how many games they left on the table.

This team was not a playoff team as constituted. This team is not going to spend unlimited money next year, especially given that they exceeded the luxury tax this year in a non-playoff competitive year. If they re-sign Bogaerts after he opts out, that money will not be used for other players.

The org has roughly $85mm to spend up to the tax threshold (counting Sale, Story, Devers, E.Hernandez, Barnes, Verdugo, Whitlock, Pivetta, Arroyo, Brasier, Taylor, Refsnyder, McGuire, Almonte, Cordero, Yu and Hosmer, based on @redsoxpayroll estimates). Replace Almonte/Brasier/Taylor/Chang with Casas/Schreiber/Houck/Wong and add Bello and Kelly to the 26-man roster --- that leaves the team with $85mm AAV room with four starters (Sale, Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello), four relievers (Barnes, Houck, Schreiber, Kelly) and eleven position players (Story, Devers, E.Hernandez, Verdugo, Arroyo, Refsnyder, McGuire, Cordero, Casas, Hosmer and Wong). That $85mm needs to cover the remaining seven 26-man spots, including #2 starter, SS, and an upgrade in RF over Cordero/Refsnyder.
 
Last edited:

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,996
What do we think Nimmo gets in FA? Super high OBP guy that's produced well in a pitcher's park (career 134 OPS+). The advanced stats peg him as an average to slightly above average at the corners or in CF. The downside is he's historically missed a bunch of games due to injury (although he played 151 games this year).

I imagine the Mets are going to try to bring him back. But it's possible they prioritize Diaz and DeGrom. I'd much rather have Nimmo at $100M+ over Benintendi at $75M or whatever. It's not like 10D is a paragon of health in comparison.
 
Last edited:

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
543
When they say a lefty handed hitter is made for Fenway Park, Nimmo looks like the exact opposite.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
Now do the same analysis for each of the wild card teams to see how many games they left on the table.

This team was not a playoff team as constituted. This team is not going to spend unlimited money next year, especially given that they exceeded the luxury tax this year in a non-playoff competitive year. If they re-sign Bogaerts after he opts out, that money will not be used for other players.

The org has roughly $85mm to spend up to the tax threshold (counting Sale, Story, Devers, E.Hernandez, Barnes, Verdugo, Whitlock, Pivetta, Arroyo, Brasier, Taylor, Refsnyder, McGuire, Almonte, Cordero, Yu and Hosmer, based on @redsoxpayroll estimates). Replace Almonte/Brasier/Taylor/Chang with Casas/Schreiber/Houck/Wong and add Bello and Kelly to the 26-man roster --- that leaves the team with $85mm AAV room with four starters (Sale, Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello), four relievers (Barnes, Houck, Schreiber, Kelly) and eleven position players (Story, Devers, E.Hernandez, Verdugo, Arroyo, Refsnyder, McGuire, Cordero, Casas, Hosmer and Wong). That $85mm needs to cover the remaining seven 26-man spots, including #2 starter, SS, and an upgrade in RF over Cordero/Refsnyder.
Except the roster as constituted (without having Sale yet) was a playoff team through over half the season until everyone got hurt.

I'm also not really seeing the money issue here. If they re-sign X for 30m a year, bring back either Wacha or Eovaldi for 20m a year that leaves them 35m for 5 roster spots including an outfielder, maybe a catcher, and some pitching depth depending on where they're going to use Whitlock.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,242
Except the roster as constituted (without having Sale yet) was a playoff team through over half the season until everyone got hurt.
Sort of; but the halves of the season aren’t equal in terms of quality of opponent; they barely played the Yankees, Jays, Rays, etc in the first half.

But yeah, run it back. Repeat baby….:)
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,302
Portland
What do we think Nimmo gets in FA? Super high OBP guy that's produced well in a pitcher's park (career 134 OPS+). The advanced stats peg him as an average to slightly above average at the corners or in CF. The downside is he's historically missed a bunch of games due to injury (although he played 151 games this year).

I imagine the Mets are going to try to bring him back. But it's possible they prioritize Diaz and DeGrom. I'd much rather have Nimmo at $100M+ over Benintendi at $75M or whatever. It's not like 10D is a paragon of health in comparison.
Not a lot of comps but Starling Marte got 4/78 and he's 5 years older. They are both very solid offensive players but Nimmo seems to be the better fielder. I'd go 5/100 for sure.

I can't see the Sox or Beni having any interest in each other.
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,242
People will hate it but I think Gallo makes sense. Probably will be looking for a make good short term deal, good defensively, versatile, value depressed after a lousy year…
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Not a lot of comps but Starling Marte got 4/78 and he's 5 years older. They are both very solid offensive players but Nimmo seems to be the better fielder. I'd go 5/100 for sure.

I can't see the Sox or Beni having any interest in each other.
Of the FA crop Nimmo probably makes the most sense, but should Duran find his way back into the OF mix you do run the risk of becoming a bit left handed in the OF again this year. A healthy Kike' and retaining RFsnyder should temper that.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,238
Bangkok
Please excuse the incredulous tone of my response to this post, but do you really think that Chaim would dole out 4 years and $75M for a guy who he deemed to be fungible a couple of years ago and traded away when he was making a fraction of that cost? That defies belief, to put it bluntly.
Bloom traded him because he wanted prospects, lower payroll and because we had a surplus of outfielders who were equally good but cost less (Verdugo, Kike, Renfroe).

Now we have a shortage of outfielders, Benintendi wouldn’t cost anything but money, which we have a lot of. And we would be getting him for his prime years. It’s highly unlikely that we would have to sign on for his age 33+ seasons, which isn’t true for any other premium free agent available this year. All the premium shortstops are going to get 5-8 year deals. A deal for Benintendi would be relatively low-risk, that’s all I’m saying. And he fills a real need.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,422
People will hate it but I think Gallo makes sense. Probably will be looking for a make good short term deal, good defensively, versatile, value depressed after a lousy year…
I think they need to set their sights higher. He's hit below .200 three years in a row, the only reason 2021 was OK because he had a walk rate that he'd never come close to before and it dropped back down this year. I mean, if it's a minor league deal, sure. But I don't see that happening when someone like Pittsburgh or Oakland can offer him a job with the hope that he turns it around for a few months and they can flip him for a grade B prospect or two.
 
Last edited:

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,884
Bloom traded him because he wanted prospects, lower payroll and because we had a surplus of outfielders who were equally good but cost less (Verdugo, Kike, Renfroe).

Now we have a shortage of outfielders, Benintendi wouldn’t cost anything but money, which we have a lot of. And we would be getting him for his prime years. It’s highly unlikely that we would have to sign on for his age 33+ seasons, which isn’t true for any other premium free agent available this year. All the premium shortstops are going to get 5-8 year deals. A deal for Benintendi would be relatively low-risk, that’s all I’m saying. And he fills a real need.
Seems like an inefficient use of dollars that could go towards extending a current player (e.g. Devers, Xander) or signing some desperately needed pitching help.

Beni's "3" win season had him turn into a slap hitter that benefited from the low offense environment this year:

OPS: 0.772
ISO: 0.095
BABIP: 0.352

His power is mostly gone (he hit 5 HRs and 23 doubles this year), and his 0.300 batting average, driven by a 0.352 BABIP, largely contributed to his offensive output this year. All of this screams regression, and would be mighty foolish to risk 20 mil per year on.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,853
Seems like an inefficient use of dollars that could go towards extending a current player (e.g. Devers, Xander) or signing some desperately needed pitching help.

Beni's "3" win season had him turn into a slap hitter that benefited from the low offense environment this year:

OPS: 0.772
ISO: 0.095
BABIP: 0.352

His power is mostly gone (he hit 5 HRs and 23 doubles this year), and his 0.300 batting average, driven by a 0.352 BABIP, largely contributed to his offensive output this year. All of this screams regression, and would be mighty foolish to risk 20 mil per year on.
Could hitters like him though have a higher value with new defensive limits on shifts?