What does 2023 look like?

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
This.

I'd love to hear an argument for throwing all of the money into pitching instead of the wiffle bat outfield.

"I don't trust prospects" is not a good foundation for policy.
Runs scored: 735 (4th in the AL)
Runs allowed: 787 (14th in the AL)

RS by playoff teams: NY 807, TOR 775, HOU 737, CLE 698, SEA 690, TB 668

RA by playoff teams: HOU 518, NY 567, TB 614, SEA 623, CLE 634, TOR 679

Sox scored more runs than three AL playoff teams, and were basically even with the Astros. They weren’t even close on runs allowed. The top 5 and 6 of the top 7 in run prevention made the playoffs.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
Runs scored: 735 (4th in the AL)
Runs allowed: 787 (14th in the AL)

RS by playoff teams: NY 807, TOR 775, HOU 737, CLE 698, SEA 690, TB 668

RA by playoff teams: HOU 518, NY 567, TB 614, SEA 623, CLE 634, TOR 679

Sox scored more runs than three AL playoff teams, and were basically even with the Astros. They weren’t even close on runs allowed. The top 5 and 6 of the top 7 in run prevention made the playoffs.
That's not an argument for throwing all of the money into pitching. That's an argument for improving our pitching. People keep posting like all of the runs scored from last year are staying.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
And a crapload of those runs were produced by guys who might be leaving. Agreed that we have multiple holes to fill, including SP.
Looking at bWAR, here are the top players from last year.

Bogaerts 5.7
Devers 4.4
Wacha 3.3
Schreiber 2.7
Pivetta 2.6
Story 2.5
Vaz 2.2

They basically need to replace the production of their best hitter and best pitcher. (Which could be done in a myriad of ways, including reupping those guys).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The argument is that the team was 4th best in the AL at scoring runs and 2nd worst at allowing them. I know that doesn't match up to what it looked like watching them on a daily basis, but the pitching was a problem.
And if they have four starters on the IL at the same time next year, even if Boston spent $50 million on upgrades, pitching will be a problem. On the other hand, the young, cost-controlled starter should be, in theory, more resistant than older, expensive pitching. Why spend $25 million on Rodon when you can allocate that money to bullpen upgrades and better OFs? I am in favor of bringing Wacha back, though, as I’m firmly of the belief that even if Sale manages to pitch more than a hundred innings we’ll find ourselves wishing for the days that he was merely injured.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
That's not an argument for throwing all of the money into pitching. That's an argument for improving our pitching. People keep posting like all of the runs scored from last year are staying.
Is anyone making that argument, though? The team is losing two of their top three performing starting pitchers (and the other one is a guy many seem to want to dump) and two of their top four performing hitters. Think it’s fair to see they need to improve on both sides of the ball, but they likely need to improve more significantly in terms of pitching / defense to contend (and much of that could of course come from Sale, Bello, etc; in the same way that the offense could improve with Casas, healthy Story).
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
Wasn't the starting pitching relatively strong, despite all the injuries?

My recollection is that the bullpen was a disaster, and that's where the runs allowed number came from.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
And if they have four starters on the IL at the same time next year, even if Boston spent $50 million on upgrades, pitching will be a problem. On the other hand, the young, cost-controlled starter should be, in theory, more resistant than older, expensive pitching. Why spend $25 million on Rodon when you can allocate that money to bullpen upgrades and better OFs? I am in favor of bringing Wacha back, though, as I’m firmly of the belief that even if Sale manages to pitch more than a hundred innings we’ll find ourselves wishing for the days that he was merely injured.
The Sox have massive amounts of money available this off-season. I’ve been hearing it all year long, Bloom is gonna spend baby! But what exactly do people want to spend it on, besides bringing every free agent back and extending Devers? Seems like spending some (not all) on improving the second worst staff in the AL should be a priority, but not the only priority.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
Wasn't the starting pitching relatively strong, despite all the injuries?

My recollection is that the bullpen was a disaster, and that's where the runs allowed number came from.
Relatively as compared to the terrible relievers, I guess. Red Sox starters had an ERA 0.48 worse than league average, the relivers were 0.89 worse. So both bad, but relief worse.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Wasn't the starting pitching relatively strong, despite all the injuries?

My recollection is that the bullpen was a disaster, and that's where the runs allowed number came from.
They have to replace Wacha, Eovaldi, and Hill. That’s 360 innnings at around a 4 FIP.

right now we’ve got…

Sale 6 IP / 2.4- fip
Pivetta 180 IP / 4.42 fip
Bello 57 IP / 2.94 fip

Then you’ve got Whitlock (78 IP / 9 starts), Crawford, Winckowski, Seabold, etc.

Last years rotation was below average and the best performers from it are mostly not under contract.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
The Sox have massive amounts of money available this off-season. I’ve been hearing it all year long, Bloom is gonna spend baby! But what exactly do people want to spend it on, besides bringing every free agent back and extending Devers? Seems like spending some (not all) on improving the second worst staff in the AL should be a priority, but not the only priority.
Their best outfielder last year was a league average bat with bad defense, and there's nobody in Worcester that's about to take a leap.

There are multiple weaknesses, agreed. And multiple ways to skin a cat. But it's easier for me to imagine internal improvement in both starting pitching (health) and relief pitching (AAAA depth) than any help in outfield.

I'm fine with them spreading the money around the roster. Probably is the safest thing to do.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Regardless, it does seem like the consensus is that the Sox pitching staff will be counting on improvement / health from the pitchers they had last season, and potentially not adding help from outside the org?
I don't think that's true. I don't think they're going to bring Wacha and Eovaldi back and I do think they're going to be bringing someone in from outside the organization. I think one piece will be for AAA depth and the only question is whether the other piece is going to be top of the rotation or bottom.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
I don't think that's true. I don't think they're going to bring Wacha and Eovaldi back and I do think they're going to be bringing someone in from outside the organization. I think one piece will be for AAA depth and the only question is whether the other piece is going to be top of the rotation or bottom.
Agreed. That makes the most sense.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
I probably have too much confidence in Sale for the upcoming season, but otherwise I'm fine with Pivetta and Bello, bring back Wacha, and the 5th starter will get sorted out.

The bullpen is a much bigger problem. The game has changed, with more importance on relievers. And anyone who has watched these playoff games has noticed, the Red Sox are miles behind. Light years behind.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
Relatively as compared to the terrible relievers, I guess. Red Sox starters had an ERA 0.48 worse than league average, the relivers were 0.89 worse. So both bad, but relief worse.
Keep in mind that starter's ERA partially depends on the bullpen keeping inherited runners from scoring.

And again, it's just my recollection, but that was a problem.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The argument is that the team was 4th best in the AL at scoring runs and 2nd worst at allowing them. I know that doesn't match up to what it looked like watching them on a daily basis, but the pitching was a problem.

There's reason for optimism if Bello is good and Sale is healthy enough to pitch more than 5 innings, but the team needs one more top of the rotation starter. The depth is good enough internally. And the bullpen needs a dramatic overhaul.

My priority list for the offseason would be

1. Shortstop
2. Bullpen
3. Outfield
4. Another starter

But I don't think they can really compete unless they get someone good for all those positions, so the priority doesn't really matter.
No doubt that pitching was a problem. As for the bolded and others may feel free to jump in here...Touching on the idea that it doesn't match up, am I wrong or were there not big swings in the run production rather than a more consistent output that may have led to the 4th best AL run total being a bit deceiving?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Their best outfielder last year was a league average bat with bad defense, and there's nobody in Worcester that's about to take a leap.

There are multiple weaknesses, agreed. And multiple ways to skin a cat. But it's easier for me to imagine internal improvement in both starting pitching (health) and relief pitching (AAAA depth) than any help in outfield.

I'm fine with them spreading the money around the roster. Probably is the safest thing to do.
I agree- but I don’t think we are quite realizing how much offense overall is down, and it’s causing us to underrate our offense and overrate our pitching. Like, Verdugo seemed mediocre but he had a 102 OPS+. By contrast, Pivetta was at a 92 ERA+ . Vazquez was at a 109 ops+, and Eovaldi 109 ERA+.

The best thing may be to just roll with Bello, Whitlock, and Houck in the rotation but not sure where that leaves the already suspect pen.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I agree- but I don’t think we are quite realizing how much offense overall is down, and it’s causing us to underrate our offense and overrate our pitching. Like, Verdugo seemed mediocre but he had a 102 OPS+. By contrast, Pivetta was at a 92 ERA+ . Vazquez was at a 109 ops+, and Eovaldi 109 ERA+.

The best thing may be to just roll with Bello, Whitlock, and Houck in the rotation but not sure where that leaves the already suspect pen.
Has anyone suggested all three of these guys will be in the rotation?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
This note is pretty funny given all of the proclamations that Bello has definitely made it as a major league starter based upon 57 innings.
If you don't understand the difference in pedigree in prospects I am not sure any of us can explain it. The three I mentioned are at best back of the rotation starters. It is not hurting the team to keep them in the minors, even if they have nothing left to prove. Bello has the upside of being a top of the rotation starter. The only way he will live up to that potential is if he starts in the majors and not the minors.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
No doubt that pitching was a problem. As for the bolded and others may feel free to jump in here...Touching on the idea that it doesn't match up, am I wrong or were there not big swings in the run production rather than a more consistent output that may have led to the 4th best AL run total being a bit deceiving?
There were definitely swings in offensive output. Runs per game by month...

April = 3.45 (22 G)
May = 5.68 (28 G)
June = 4.96 (26 G)
July = 3.85 (27 G)
August = 4.32 (28 G)
Sept/Oct = 4.71 (31 G)
Total = 4.54

The offense was ice cold to start the year (and the pitching was generally good). The offense picked up in May and June and the team got hot. The rotation hit the IL and the offense hit the skids in July and unsurprisingly the team nosedived.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,481
Rogers Park
Some of the young pitchers we haven’t seen yet seem like potential impact relievers. Mata in particular has the high end stuff and two swing and miss pitches you look for in a late inning reliever.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
If you don't understand the difference in pedigree in prospects I am not sure any of us can explain it. The three I mentioned are at best back of the rotation starters. It is not hurting the team to keep them in the minors, even if they have nothing left to prove. Bello has the upside of being a top of the rotation starter. The only way he will live up to that potential is if he starts in the majors and not the minors.
What are you talking about? I never equated Bello with the Crawford/Winck/Seabold group in anyway whatsoever. In fact, I explicitly said that I want Bello making the starts rather than any of those 3 because he is better by far.

The point isn't to hold Bello down in AAA the entire year. It is to have 5 starters other than Bello so when one of them inevitably gets injured Bello can step in. Nobody's development is getting stunted by spending a month in AAA, if that even happens.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
538
Some of the young pitchers we haven’t seen yet seem like potential impact relievers. Mata in particular has the high end stuff and two swing and miss pitches you look for in a late inning reliever.
Can you explain why Mata ranked 24th out of 29 Worcester pitchers in swinging strike rate? Wasn't very good in Portland either.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,481
Rogers Park
Can you explain why Mata ranked 24th out of 29 Worcester pitchers in swinging strike rate? Wasn't very good in Portland either.
Huh. I didn't realize that. Pretty interesting that he was able to sustain an 11.4 k/9 (across all levels) without many swinging strikes.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Can you explain why Mata ranked 24th out of 29 Worcester pitchers in swinging strike rate? Wasn't very good in Portland either.
He was starting, not relieving, and he had Tommy John in 2021 so likely won't be back to form until 2023.

This is from SoxProspects

Summation:
Projects as a back end starter or multi-inning relief arm with premium stuff to handle a late inning role if necessary. Ceiling of a mid-rotation starter. Still has a wide range of outcomes as he makes his return from Tommy John surgery. Raw stuff is back, but feel for secondaries and command come and go within outings. Might be able to start, but could be more effective in shorter bursts out of the bullpen. Delivery still has effort and we need to see how his stuff holds up over longer, 5-6-inning stints and when pitching on a consistent starter's schedule. Will show the potential for a true four-pitch mix with two potential plus offerings. Has shown the ability to miss bats with all four pitches at various points in his career. Harnessing command of his arsenal will be key for his development. Injury risk had become a concern even pre-Tommy John surgery, as he last made it through a full season healthy in 2017. Tommy John Surgery in April 2021 clouds future starter profile.
https://soxprospects.com/players/mata-bryan.htm

He's clearly not there yet, and may never be, but it also wouldn't be surprising to see him getting important outs in the 2023 World Series.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
What are you talking about? I never equated Bello with the Crawford/Winck/Seabold group in anyway whatsoever. In fact, I explicitly said that I want Bello making the starts rather than any of those 3 because he is better by far.

The point isn't to hold Bello down in AAA the entire year. It is to have 5 starters other than Bello so when one of them inevitably gets injured Bello can step in. Nobody's development is getting stunted by spending a month in AAA, if that even happens.
I still don't get this logic.

Why is having Bello to step in better than having Bello start as many games as he can handle and have someone else ready to step in?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I still don't get this logic.

Why is having Bello to step in better than having Bello start as many games as he can handle and have someone else ready to step in?
Depth is good. The more good pitchers, the better.

Right now, the rotation could be Sale, Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello, and Houck, were we so inclined, right. Five guys who could all be really good, right?

Of course, a few of them will almost certainly get hurt or be ineffective. But we have no idea which ones! So, you bring in a few more good pitchers.

The worst case scenario is you have too many good pitchers. Which isn’t really a problem at all.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Depth is good. The more good pitchers, the better.

Right now, the rotation could be Sale, Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello, and Houck, were we so inclined, right. Five guys who could all be really good, right?

Of course, a few of them will almost certainly get hurt or be ineffective. But we have no idea which ones! So, you bring in a few more good pitchers.

The worst case scenario is you have too many good pitchers. Which isn’t really a problem at all.
None of that is an argument to keep Bello out of the opening day rotation.

Right now, under contract for 2023 we have Sale, Whitlock, Bello, and Pivetta. If they want to acquire two pitchers better than Bello, or move Houck back to the rotation, they certainly could, but a) I doubt they get two pitchers better than Bello and b) that would just shift the need to the bullpen which is already a pretty damn big need.

If you want to have the five best major league ready starters in the rotation on opening day, that is almost certainly going to include Bello.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Question concerning Whitlock. There was a good deal of speculation that he ultimately winds up in the rotation, some here prefer to see him as a relief ace. I'm not necessarily advocating for this, but rather just thinking out loud. What about the idea of using him as a bulk guy following an opener. Hitters are likely only seeing him for the second time around in later innings and in the games he's pitching in he's likely going to be that late inning guy (7th and 8th) that can keep opposing hitters at bay. We've seen some level of success for few seasons now with the right guy and Whitlock could be that guy if the Sox can find a dependable pitcher to get through the first 2-3 innings. Even in relief last season he was often on what would be comparable to a starter's schedule. Might this be a compromise where he is for all intents and purposes a starting pitcher that can effectively go deep into games?
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
I still don't get this logic.

Why is having Bello to step in better than having Bello start as many games as he can handle and have someone else ready to step in?
Because Eovaldi or Wacha or Rodon or whoever they sign is better than Winckowski. This isn't about Bello, it is about the rest of the staff.

None of that is an argument to keep Bello out of the opening day rotation.

Right now, under contract for 2023 we have Sale, Whitlock, Bello, and Pivetta. If they want to acquire two pitchers better than Bello, or move Houck back to the rotation, they certainly could, but a) I doubt they get two pitchers better than Bello and b) that would just shift the need to the bullpen which is already a pretty damn big need.

If you want to have the five best major league ready starters in the rotation on opening day, that is almost certainly going to include Bello.
I would argue that having deeper depth in the rotation would help the bullpen, as it frees up guys like Mata or Ward as relievers rather than having to stay stretched out in AAA as the starter depth.

And I would disagree that the goal is to have the 5 best starters in Boston on opening day. The goal should be to have the least number of starts as possible go to guys who really aren't legitimate major league starters. Seabold and Winck are not (at least right now), Crawford may be but he has never been a real prospect so there is reason for skepticism with him.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I agree- but I don’t think we are quite realizing how much offense overall is down, and it’s causing us to underrate our offense and overrate our pitching. Like, Verdugo seemed mediocre but he had a 102 OPS+. By contrast, Pivetta was at a 92 ERA+ . Vazquez was at a 109 ops+, and Eovaldi 109 ERA+.

The best thing may be to just roll with Bello, Whitlock, and Houck in the rotation but not sure where that leaves the already suspect pen.
I’d rather they roll Houk back to the bullpen because putting Houk back into the pen does more to shore up the staff than relegating Bello to Worcester.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
Question concerning Whitlock. There was a good deal of speculation that he ultimately winds up in the rotation, some here prefer to see him as a relief ace. I'm not necessarily advocating for this, but rather just thinking out loud. What about the idea of using him as a bulk guy following an opener. Hitters are likely only seeing him for the second time around in later innings and in the games he's pitching in he's likely going to be that late inning guy (7th and 8th) that can keep opposing hitters at bay. We've seen some level of success for few seasons now with the right guy and Whitlock could be that guy if the Sox can find a dependable pitcher to get through the first 2-3 innings. Even in relief last season he was often on what would be comparable to a starter's schedule. Might this be a compromise where he is for all intents and purposes a starting pitcher that can effectively go deep into games?
This is exactly how I think they should use him. Complete agreement.

As for whatever the heck Jack Rabbit just said... did he say you don't want to start the season with your best team?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
\Because Eovaldi or Wacha or Rodon or whoever they sign is better than Winckowski. This isn't about Bello, it is about the rest of the staff.
This doesn't make any sense. You don't upgrade your sixth starter at the expense of one of your top five starters.

I would argue that having deeper depth in the rotation would help the bullpen, as it frees up guys like Mata or Ward as relievers rather than having to stay stretched out in AAA as the starter depth.

And I would disagree that the goal is to have the 5 best starters in Boston on opening day. The goal should be to have the least number of starts as possible go to guys who really aren't legitimate major league starters. Seabold and Winck are not (at least right now), Crawford may be but he has never been a real prospect so there is reason for skepticism with him.
This is why this opinion is nonsense. There are going to be starts made by starters other than the top five. Injuries will dictate a certain number. You're arguing for intentionally increasing that number unless you're planning on signing at least two starters who are better than Bello.

Sign a guy to be a major league starter. Sign another guy to be depth. Start the season with the best five starters. It's not rocket science.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,481
Rogers Park
I can see both sides of this.
  • The argument for Bello as a sixth starter: it is hard/impossible to sign good, uninjured starting pitchers to roles without guaranteed major league starting opportunities. So even if Bello is, say, our third best starting pitcher, he should start in AAA to help us build "deep depth."
    • This was basically the argument for the Paxton signing, FWIW. In order to add pitchers from outside the organization who don't need an Opening Day 26-man roster spot, something has to be wrong with them or they're not available for the role. An injured pitcher with high upside and a decent chance to return in the second half is one way of adding high-end SP depth.
    • The risk is that you end up with some mediocre veteran throwing badly in Boston while Bello's development fails to progress in AAA.
  • The argument for Bello to start in the rotation: we actually have a pitching prospect with ace upside, so we should prioritize his development, especially in a world where Kutter Crawford and Thaddeus Ward exist — i.e. where we have some other SP depth with upside. If he's able to realize even most of his potential, it's huge for the organization. And Bello doesn't have much more to prove in the minors.
    • The risk here is that, well, our incumbent pitchers are not exactly the picture of health. Who knows what's going on with Sale and Whitlock, but no one would be surprised if they are injured at some point next year, and you don't want to put yourself in a position where Winckowski is throwing 90 innings for the big club.
    • But... so much has to go wrong to end up in that scenario again that it doesn't really matter what you do.
I guess my view is that it depends on who we're talking about acquiring. If the idea is to sign or trade for legitimate ace types and really go for it in a high-risk, high-reward scenario, then sure, stash Bello and Crawford at SP6 and SP7 behind (let's say) deGrom, Sale, Paxton, Pivetta, and Whitlock and roll the dice — talk about a roster that could finish first or fifth. But if we're talking about signing Sean Manaea to be our SP4, I'd rather see what Bello could do from Opening Day.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
This doesn't make any sense. You don't upgrade your sixth starter at the expense of one of your top five starters.



This is why this opinion is nonsense. There are going to be starts made by starters other than the top five. Injuries will dictate a certain number. You're arguing for intentionally increasing that number unless you're planning on signing at least two starters who are better than Bello.

Sign a guy to be a major league starter. Sign another guy to be depth. Start the season with the best five starters. It's not rocket science.
I am suggesting they sign two starters. Maybe not better than Bello, but better than Pivetta.

You agree they will need to sign 1 starter. But who is this guy they are signing to be depth? In order to serve as depth they would need to be willing to sit in the pen or sign a minor league contract. Guys willing to sign on as a swingman usually have significant issues, like Hill or pre-2022 Wacha. Maybe you hit on that bet, but more often you don't. And guys willing to sign a minor league contract are almost always terrible.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
I can see both sides of this.
  • The argument for Bello as a sixth starter: it is hard/impossible to sign good, uninjured starting pitchers to roles without guaranteed major league starting opportunities. So even if Bello is, say, our third best starting pitcher, he should start in AAA to help us build "deep depth."
    • This was basically the argument for the Paxton signing, FWIW. In order to add pitchers from outside the organization who don't need an Opening Day 26-man roster spot, something has to be wrong with them or they're not available for the role. An injured pitcher with high upside and a decent chance to return in the second half is one way of adding high-end SP depth.
    • The risk is that you end up with some mediocre veteran throwing badly in Boston while Bello's development fails to progress in AAA.
  • The argument for Bello to start in the rotation: we actually have a pitching prospect with ace upside, so we should prioritize his development, especially in a world where Kutter Crawford and Thaddeus Ward exist — i.e. where we have some other SP depth with upside. If he's able to realize even most of his potential, it's huge for the organization. And Bello doesn't have much more to prove in the minors.
    • The risk here is that, well, our incumbent pitchers are not exactly the picture of health. Who knows what's going on with Sale and Whitlock, but no one would be surprised if they are injured at some point next year, and you don't want to put yourself in a position where Winckowski is throwing 90 innings for the big club.
    • But... so much has to go wrong to end up in that scenario again that it doesn't really matter what you do.
I guess my view is that it depends on who we're talking about acquiring. If the idea is to sign or trade for legitimate ace types and really go for it in a high-risk, high-reward scenario, then sure, stash Bello and Crawford at SP6 and SP7 behind (let's say) deGrom, Sale, Paxton, Pivetta, and Whitlock and roll the dice — talk about a roster that could finish first or fifth. But if we're talking about signing Sean Manaea to be our SP4, I'd rather see what Bello could do from Opening Day.
This is well put and if the option is anyone worse than the Eovaldi/Wacha tier, then Bello should be in Boston.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
I am suggesting they sign two starters. Maybe not better than Bello, but better than Pivetta.

You agree they will need to sign 1 starter. But who is this guy they are signing to be depth? In order to serve as depth they would need to be willing to sit in the pen or sign a minor league contract. Guys willing to sign on as a swingman usually have significant issues, like Hill or pre-2022 Wacha. Maybe you hit on that bet, but more often you don't. And guys willing to sign a minor league contract are almost always terrible.
Signing two guys better than Pivetta is going to be both hard and expensive. Possible, sure, but I don't think it's remotely likely.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
None of that is an argument to keep Bello out of the opening day rotation.

Right now, under contract for 2023 we have Sale, Whitlock, Bello, and Pivetta. If they want to acquire two pitchers better than Bello, or move Houck back to the rotation, they certainly could, but a) I doubt they get two pitchers better than Bello and b) that would just shift the need to the bullpen which is already a pretty damn big need.

If you want to have the five best major league ready starters in the rotation on opening day, that is almost certainly going to include Bello.
The only reason to hold him back is an innings cap. No idea if they will have one for him but he jumped from 96 to 153 last year. If they want to limit him to 160 or 170, they might leave him behind for a few weeks?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
My preference would be to keep Houck and Whitlock in the bullpen and Bello in the MLB rotation. The bullpen sucked last year and the difference in value between bullpen aces and midlevel rotation guys is merging. I would not go after the likely very expensive top-end guys due to age (Verlander), injury history (Rodon), and both (DeGrom). Even a step below that, I'm not sure I would be comfortable paying $20M+ per season to Chris Bassitt.

I think re-signing either Eovaldi or Wacha makes the most sense. I think you're more likely to get Eovaldi back at a relative discount due to his off-year, injury, age, and he seems happy in Boston.

You still need one more guy, and this is where I hope they try to trade for Burnes or Woodruff. Burnes will probably cost a fortune but he's my preference. 27 years old, very low mileage on his arm, coming off two excellent years with two more arb years remaining.

If trades for a top of the rotation guy don't work, re-try the Wacha strategy but don't pay Wacha for last year's performance. I'd target a 1-year deal bounce back from one of the San Diego free agents (Manaea or Clevinger). Or maybe you wait out the market and see if Taijuan Walker or Jose Quintana's market is weaker than anticipated.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
The only reason to hold him back is an innings cap. No idea if they will have one for him but he jumped from 96 to 153 last year. If they want to limit him to 160 or 170, they might leave him behind for a few weeks?
I don't think they need to play any games to cap Bello's innings at 160/170. Last season, only 29 pitchers threw more 180 innings or more in the entire league. Boston didn't have a single starter throw that many innings (Pivetta was very close at 179.2)
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
Signing two guys better than Pivetta is going to be both hard and expensive. Possible, sure, but I don't think it's remotely likely.
Expensive yes. Hard, maybe? Why is it so unlikely that Eovaldi and Wacha are back on QO's or some other reworked deal? I would say Eovaldi is likely to accept a QO and Wacha is 50/50. And its not 2 starters at any cost, if you get into the offseason and the prices get crazy, pivoting to Bello in the rotation is always a fallback.

A wildcard here that the Sox have no control over is Paxton. If he picks up his $4M option, then I could see adding one expensive starter and Rich Hill. Paxton probably gets an extended spring training since he's hardly pitched in 3 years and Hill seems like he may accept a swingman role. In that case, Bello could start in the rotation.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Because Eovaldi or Wacha or Rodon or whoever they sign is better than Winckowski. This isn't about Bello, it is about the rest of the staff.


I would argue that having deeper depth in the rotation would help the bullpen, as it frees up guys like Mata or Ward as relievers rather than having to stay stretched out in AAA as the starter depth.

And I would disagree that the goal is to have the 5 best starters in Boston on opening day. The goal should be to have the least number of starts as possible go to guys who really aren't legitimate major league starters. Seabold and Winck are not (at least right now), Crawford may be but he has never been a real prospect so there is reason for skepticism with him.
Do you understand what depth is? If the team is extremely lucky they have some young prospect who spend the first month or so of the season getting some last minute seasoning in the Minors and then comes up and dominants. More often then not, depth is the Hills, Wachas, Winchowskis, Crawfords and Seabolds of the world. You don't minimize the amount of innings you can get from a very promising prospect who has already proven themselves in a small amount of innings because you want your depth to be potential super star players.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,304
Do you understand what depth is? If the team is extremely lucky they have some young prospect who spend the first month or so of the season getting some last minute seasoning in the Minors and then comes up and dominants. More often then not, depth is the Hills, Wachas, Winchowskis, Crawfords and Seabolds of the world. You don't minimize the amount of innings you can get from a very promising prospect who has already proven themselves in a small amount of innings because you want your depth to be potential super star players.
Isn't this pretty close to describing Brayan Bello? He is all of 7.1 innings past qualifying as a prospect.

You are right about what depth typically is, but if there is a unique opportunity to do better than that why is there such a resistance to take it? Isn't pitching depth to the point of absurdity how the Dodgers have dominated the regular season for the last 5 years?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Isn't this pretty close to describing Brayan Bello? He is all of 7.1 innings past qualifying as a prospect.

You are right about what depth typically is, but if there is a unique opportunity to do better than that why is there such a resistance to take it? Isn't pitching depth to the point of absurdity how the Dodgers have dominated the regular season for the last 5 years?
No that doesn't describe Bello. He pitched in the majors this seasoning and even though the evidence is small, it is pointing to him not having seasoning left to do in Triple A. In order to continue to hone his craft he needs to be pitching in the Majors. If we were talking about some pitcher that might be a fifth starter at best, then who cares if they start in the minors, but when you are talking about a player who has elite potential you don't just stick them in the minors because the people who are going to provide depth aren't as sexy. I guess we are just going around in circles at this point. I would be very shocked, barring injury, if Bello was not in the rotation to begin the year. If the Sox front office was run by people who thought sticking Bello's in the minors for depth was a good idea, I would be very concerned about the direction of the Red Sox.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
People are getting way too fixated on what # starter Bello is, it doesn’t matter. They need to bring in more pitching depth because pitchers will get hurt. Even if there is some hypothetical starting pitcher list that Bello is 6th on right now, it’s very likely he moves up that list by the team the season starts because someone or multiple someone’s get injured. Adding more depth now doesn’t mean Bello starts in the minors. Its a lot easier to add pitching in December than it is in April.

Everyone seems to agree that the Sox need to add two more SP, anyways.
 
Last edited:

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
They could just sign him to be an "organizational pitching instructor," doing occasional visits to various prospects, then sign him to a player contract when the time comes
I mentioned this awhile ago but Bello said that HIll was showing him how to throw a curveball. So it wouldn't even be that much of a stretch.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Everyone seems to agree that the Sox need to add two more SP, anyways.
I think to the extent that a lot of us think that moving at least Houk and possibly Whitlock back to the pen would transform it. Which opens up their spot(s) in the rotation. Bello is a top of the rotation starter, he’s going to be starting in Boston.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,932
People are getting way too fixated on what # starter Bello is, it doesn’t matter. They need to bring in more pitching depth because pitchers will get hurt. Even if there is some hypothetical starting pitcher list that Bello is 6th on right now, it’s very likely he moves up that list by the team the season starts because someone or multiple someone’s get injured. Adding more depth now doesn’t mean Bello starts in the minors. Its a lot easier to add pitching in December than it is in April.

Everyone seems to agree that the Sox need to add two more SP, anyways.
Of course they need to add depth and many people have said the Sox should do just that. But the depth can be behind Bello. There's Paxton, who may need more time to get ready, there's Hill who may not want to pitch at the start of the year, and they can look to sign/trade for guys who can pitch in AAA and provide depth in case of an injury. Will they be as good as Bello? Certainly not. But that's not a good reason to keep Bello in AAA.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
367
Runs scored: 735 (4th in the AL)
Runs allowed: 787 (14th in the AL)

RS by playoff teams: NY 807, TOR 775, HOU 737, CLE 698, SEA 690, TB 668

RA by playoff teams: HOU 518, NY 567, TB 614, SEA 623, CLE 634, TOR 679

Sox scored more runs than three AL playoff teams, and were basically even with the Astros. They weren’t even close on runs allowed. The top 5 and 6 of the top 7 in run prevention made the playoffs.
I have pointed out several times that the RS and RA would suggest that the pitching was the main issue despite what often seemed like an anemic offense. Interpretation of that data has to take into account the several amazingly lopsided losses sustained by the Red Sox last year, the ultimate example being the 28-5 drubbing by Toronto.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
I have pointed out several times that the RS and RA would suggest that the pitching was the main issue despite what often seemed like an anemic offense. Interpretation of that data has to take into account the several amazingly lopsided losses sustained by the Red Sox last year, the ultimate example being the 28-5 drubbing by Toronto.
It feels like there were more than the average lopsided losses, and some wins, in this weird disappointing season.