So, the Red Sox made another confusing move yesterday. Add
another one to the list.
On the surface, it’s
a reasonable move. The Sox traded for an all-star closer and a prospect by
giving up a set-up guy and a couple prospects. Makes sense to me. The Sox even
went to their stock explanation that they weren’t trading for a closer. Much
like when they signed Keith Foulke, they simply traded for an elite pitcher.
This pitcher just happened to be a closer. Not a bad thing to do at all.
I had the
opportunity to see Joel Hanrahan pitch live a couple years ago. When I was at
PNC Park, he came in to close out the game. When he entered the game, there was
an energy in the crowd. That’s saying something considering the sparse crowd at
PNC. If he was good enough to ignite those fans, that was pretty impressive.
So, it’s not that I disapprove of the move. The real question is, why?
When I talked about
the Drew deal, I questioned the motive. Why would a team in a rebuilding phase
sign a middle of the road shortstop to a one-year, $10 million deal? If you’re
going to lose a bunch of games anyway, there are cheaper options out there. Was
it simply to appease the fans? Look, we have honest to goodness major league
talent at every position…come buy tickets! Or, do the Sox actually think they
can compete in 2013? Did they fix the most glaring hole in their line-up in
order to make a run?
This move confuses
me in the same way…but to a larger degree. It’s one thing to admit that Jose
Iglesias isn’t ready. They actually needed a body of some sort to play
shortstop. You could argue that paying too much for Drew to make the team at
least worth watching wasn’t a terrible move. But, what about this one? The Sox
have a closer. Heck, the Sox have at least three closers. The Sox even already
had a two-time all-star closer. What did they need another one for? Why did
they need another one when he is about to make actual money? Why did they need
another one when he is going to be a free agent after a year? Why rent an extra
closer?
Are they planning on
making a run?
This addition does
make a pretty good bullpen. Are they planning on having that compensate for
inferior starting pitching? The line-up they’ve been putting together isn’t
terrible. They won’t lead the league in runs, but they’ll be middle of the
pack. That might make for an interesting team, except for the lack of dominant
starting pitching. Are the Sox planning on having the bullpen cover for that?
In 2009, the Sox
acquired Billy Wagner. It made for an great bullpen. I don’t remember all the
players, but the Sox really had two different sets of top bullpens. It was fun
to watch. Is that where the Sox are going this year? Say Lester goes six solid
innings. Then, the Sox can follow with one inning each from Aceves, Bailey, and
Hanrahan. The next night, Buchholz also only goes six innings. They Sox can
then use one inning each from a rested Bard, Miller, and Uehara. The night
after that, Lackey only goes six. Well, Aceves, Uehara, and Hanrahan are rested
and ready to go. If, perchance, a starter can actually go seven innings, one of
the pen guys gets some extra rest. If a starter only goes four or five? Morales
is there to mop up.
Suddenly, you don’t
need any aces. You need decent starters. A quality start is plenty, even with a
moderate offense. Is that the plan?
Could it actually
work?
I think the Sox are trying to win within the confines of not signing big names that they feel won't fit in Boston for money that will hinder acquiring future expensive players that will fit while not sacrificing prospects that will either play here or be used in a trade. It's not too unusual to have two closets. Look at the Yankees the last few years. It's a luxury most teams can't afford and one or both may fetch something significant at the trade deadline if either can stay healthy, which has been a problem for Bailey lately. The Sox don't really have an ace but they have the prospects and flexibility to get one if the opportunity comes along. In the meantime, they will have a strong pen. Look what that did for Baltimore!
ReplyDelete*closers (foiled by auto spell check!)
ReplyDelete