Tandem Closers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Tandem Closers

    I realize this goes against conventional baseball protocol, but it might be ideal for Boston this year. Assuming Papelbon walks and the team gets the two picks, instead of making Bard the closer and spinning the wheel for 1 or 2 set-up pitchers, why not sign a proven closer and let them swap off the 8th/9th frames?

    Beyond ego,the only problem I see is getting caught up in role definition, which is bordering the ridiculous. The 8th inning in any close game is just as important as the 9th. If there's an 8th inning blow-up, the 9th frame is irrelevant.
    It's high time closers adopted this mentality.

    Yeah, it means paying closer $$$, but the likelihood is that it'll be less binding than inking Paps for 4 years.
    Bard, IMO, needs a credible back-up so as not to feel it's all on him; do or die.
    And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler, perhaps the bar should be set higher.
    Bard deserves the shot at closer. He's earned it. I think he might embrace the idea of two closers.

    You call it.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from walterjohnson07. Show walterjohnson07's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Aceves might not be happy in that role, although he has said publicly that he'd do anything to help the team.  I've read elsewhere that he would prefer to be a starter.  That may not be in the cards, but he seemed invaluable as a middle or long reliever.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    The best tandem ever was Smith/Reardon of course it was a complete waste to even bring in Reardon and the tandem only lasted long enough for the Sox to show off Lee; as if a HOF reliever needed to be showcased.

    Just when you think we got it bad now I only need to recall FO moves like that to realize we have it good.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    I think the idea could work. 

    If Paps walks it might be hard to bring in a "closer type" without promising the full closer role, but I do think Bard is ready to be at least given a shot at the role. His issue seems to be stamina, so limiting his IP next year (via "tandem") might work.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sindarin-erebor. Show sindarin-erebor's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    If Paps goes via FA, IMO Bard deserves a shot, but should be on a short leash, with a capable back up ready, given Bard's inconsistency last year. "Capable Backup" will be the problem finding to replace Paps if Bard fails. I do not like the Closer by Committe model as it leads to confusion.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Capps is available via FA, but is still too expensive IMO. Still, would save about 4M.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Here's a thought. Let's let the BP do their job when called upon. Anyone should be able to come out the BP and get three outs. Why the heck does there even have to be a closer.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]I realize this goes against conventional baseball protocol, but it might be ideal for Boston this year. Assuming Papelbon walks and the team gets the two picks, instead of making Bard the closer and spinning the wheel for 1 or 2 set-up pitchers, why not sign a proven closer and let them swap off the 8th/9th frames? Beyond ego,the only problem I see is getting caught up in role definition, which is bordering the ridiculous. The 8th inning in any close game is just as important as the 9th. If there's an 8th inning blow-up, the 9th frame is irrelevant. It's high time closers adopted this mentality. Yeah, it means paying closer $$$, but the likelihood is that it'll be less binding than inking Paps for 4 years. Bard, IMO, needs a credible back-up so as not to feel it's all on him; do or die. And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler, perhaps the bar should be set higher. Bard deserves the shot at closer. He's earned it. I think he might embrace the idea of two closers. You call it.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
      I don't want a closer who would "embrace" the idea of sharing his  role. A good closer has to be a competiter who wants the ball at all times.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]. Bard deserves the shot at closer. He's earned it. I think he might embrace the idea of two closers. You call it.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    First I have no problem with the tandem closer. I wanted Wagner back so he and Paps could do just that.
    Bard "DESERVES" the shot NO FREAKIN" way. He has had 5 saves in 3 years 16 tries. 7 in 2010 and 3 in 2011.
    He DOES NOT deserve to be given the closer role.
    Yes he has had 13, 32 & 34 Holds but has not yet shown he can be the 9th inning guy not by the actual attempts any way. If you are using holds as the reason he may be able to do it???????????????
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Tandem Closers : First I have no problem with the tandem closer. I wanted Wagner back so he and Paps could do just that. Bard "DESERVES" the shot NO FREAKIN" way. He has had 5 saves in 3 years 16 tries. 7 in 2010 and 3 in 2011. He DOES NOT deserve to be given the closer role. Yes he has had 13, 32 & 34 Holds but has not yet shown he can be the 9th inning guy not by the actual attempts any way. If you are using holds as the reason he may be able to do it???????????????
    Posted by JimfromFlorida[/QUOTE]

    How can you not count his holds?  That's what a setup man gets when he has done his job.  Really, his blown saves should be called 'blown holds' because they indicate a failure to get a hold - not a save.  But how many times has Bard been brought in with men on base or the bases loaded, compared to Papelbon, who almost always started with a clean inning?

    If we get a sabermetric manager, the saves stats might go out the window, as the 'closer' would be used at the point in the game that most represents a turning point in the win probability - it could be as early as the sixth inning.




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Tandem Closers : First I have no problem with the tandem closer. I wanted Wagner back so he and Paps could do just that. Bard "DESERVES" the shot NO FREAKIN" way. He has had 5 saves in 3 years 16 tries. 7 in 2010 and 3 in 2011. He DOES NOT deserve to be given the closer role. Yes he has had 13, 32 & 34 Holds but has not yet shown he can be the 9th inning guy not by the actual attempts any way. If you are using holds as the reason he may be able to do it???????????????
    Posted by JimfromFlorida[/QUOTE]

    I think your mistake is in thinking that those blown saves came in the ninth inning.  Bard gets a blown save when he gives up the lead regardless of what inning it comes in.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3992292. Show user_3992292's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Right now there are not many teams that is going to give Papelbon a big fat contract cuz these teams probably rather to fix their offense, defense and starting pitcher first before they need to look for a closer.  Only team that I can think of that is more likely to sign Papelbon a big fat contract is the Phillies cuz the Phillies do not have a decent closer for years.  Right now all post season teams for the 2011 season all have a decent closer such as Brewers, Arizona, Detriot, Texas, Yankees, etc.  Only team that may be looking for one next year is Tampa and Phillies.  But we all know that Tampa cant afford to give out big fat contract.  

    Therefore, I strongly think Papelbon is more likely to come back to Boston for a three years contract.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler

    Dan Wheeler, though high mileage and aged, pitched 49.1 innings in 47 game relief appearances, with a 1.11 Whip. His cost was 3M for one year and an option year. Wheeler looks like Rivera compared to Jenks!

    I denounced Jenks before Inepstein offered absurd 2 year 12Million deal. Jenks is a 100% total bust, only lesser than Crawford because of years.

    Anone equating the two has no credibility.

    Jenks was brought in to do exactly what the op is advocating. To close on days that Pepelbon was not an option in closing situations. A total disaster.

    Market for Papelbon does not include the Yankees and is unlikely to include any 3 year pipedream offers. Bard should be converted to a starter, if at all possible, and Papelbon offered 2 years and about 13M. Only go 3 years if offer sheet proof, unlikely. If some idiotic Gm like Inepstein or JR pull a Crawford, simply turn it over to Bard and live with the sure ups and downs that will make Papelbon look better than Mo.

    If Wheeler can pass a truly stringent physical, decline his option and offer a one year deal at half the option amount or 1.5M.

    Demand that Jenks get in proper condition and weight or use the DL to manage his bust final contract year. If after spring it becomes clear Jenks is in Wastefield roster entitlement mode, try and trade him for a used car or release him.

    Do the normal spring tryout for bullpen misfits on minor league deals.

    As long as the Red Sox fire current gm and get a new competent pitching management and development staff, pitching in pen will be more than adequate.

    Do not spend any big money on FA pen arms, other than for Papelbon as outlined above. Pull the plug on Papelbon if stupid Inesptein like GM offers Mo base or 3 year deal in a 2 year market.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-Bay-Fan. Show J-Bay-Fan's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Sorry Harness but Wheeler did the job! 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler Dan Wheeler, though high mileage and aged, pitched 49.1 innings in 47 game relief appearances, with a 1.11 Whip. His cost was 3M for one year and an option year. Wheeler looks like Rivera compared to Jenks! I denounced Jenks before Inepstein offered absurd 2 year 12Million deal. Jenks is a 100% total bust, only lesser than Crawford because of years. Anone equating the two has no credibility. Jenks was brought in to do exactly what the op is advocating. To close on days that Pepelbon was not an option in closing situations. A total disaster. Market for Papelbon does not include the Yankees and is unlikely to include any 3 year pipedream offers. Bard should be converted to a starter, if at all possible, and Papelbon offered 2 years and about 13M. Only go 3 years if offer sheet proof, unlikely. If some idiotic Gm like Inepstein or JR pull a Crawford, simply turn it over to Bard and live with the sure ups and downs that will make Papelbon look better than Mo. If Wheeler can pass a truly stringent physical, decline his option and offer a one year deal at half the option amount or 1.5M. Demand that Jenks get in proper condition and weight or use the DL to manage his bust final contract year. If after spring it becomes clear Jenks is in Wastefield roster entitlement mode, try and trade him for a used car or release him. Do the normal spring tryout for bullpen misfits on minor league deals. As long as the Red Sox fire current gm and get a new competent pitching management and development staff, pitching in pen will be more than adequate. Do not spend any big money on FA pen arms, other than for Papelbon as outlined above. Pull the plug on Papelbon if stupid Inesptein like GM offers Mo base or 3 year deal in a 2 year market.
    Posted by 1958lesspaul[/QUOTE]

    You called it right last year - Putz was the guy to get.  Terrific year for AZ.  

    I think somebody signs Papelbon long-term, but it's a bit of a bad year for him.  The two 'big-market' teams with the biggest needs that might otherwise go for him (LAD & NYM) are in financial turmoil.  Maybe the Twins or Cubs bite, but it's a lot of money to spend on one need, when they obviously have multiple others to address.

    The one bullpen arm I might sign in FA is Joel Perralta - terrific year, and would not cost much.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Good post Slomag, and I agree. Putz numbers v. AL East were outstanding. The board propagandist claimed Putz was not possible becuase he wanted to be a closer. But it is a business. All Putz wanted was closer money and a 2 year gurantee. InEpstein failed again. An early contract offer to Putz, like this, would have brought him to Boston for 2011, over 2 year 5M a year 10M contract he ended up signing with DBacks:

    Year 1 7M
    Year 2 7M  Putz is allowed to unilaterally opt out and chase closer FA 2 year bigger contract if he has a solid part-time closer and set-up year. If not, he is still guaranteed 4M more to go to Boston and has the best of both worlds.

    If that would have been offered right on heels of FA declaration, he would have been signed.

     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler Dan Wheeler, though high mileage and aged, pitched 49.1 innings in 47 game relief appearances, with a 1.11 Whip. His cost was 3M for one year and an option year. Wheeler looks like Rivera compared to Jenks! I denounced Jenks before Inepstein offered absurd 2 year 12Million deal. Jenks is a 100% total bust, only lesser than Crawford because of years. Anone equating the two has no credibility. Jenks was brought in to do exactly what the op is advocating. To close on days that Pepelbon was not an option in closing situations. A total disaster. Market for Papelbon does not include the Yankees and is unlikely to include any 3 year pipedream offers. Bard should be converted to a starter, if at all possible, and Papelbon offered 2 years and about 13M. Only go 3 years if offer sheet proof, unlikely. If some idiotic Gm like Inepstein or JR pull a Crawford, simply turn it over to Bard and live with the sure ups and downs that will make Papelbon look better than Mo. If Wheeler can pass a truly stringent physical, decline his option and offer a one year deal at half the option amount or 1.5M. Demand that Jenks get in proper condition and weight or use the DL to manage his bust final contract year. If after spring it becomes clear Jenks is in Wastefield roster entitlement mode, try and trade him for a used car or release him. Do the normal spring tryout for bullpen misfits on minor league deals. As long as the Red Sox fire current gm and get a new competent pitching management and development staff, pitching in pen will be more than adequate. Do not spend any big money on FA pen arms, other than for Papelbon as outlined above. Pull the plug on Papelbon if stupid Inesptein like GM offers Mo base or 3 year deal in a 2 year market.
    Posted by 1958lesspaul[/QUOTE]
    I would re-sign Pap for anything within reason. He is still one of the top closers. Other than that , starting pitching should be the priority. Have to get that fixed before worrying about long relief and bridge / set up men. I would give both Bard and Aceves a full shot at starting, to join Beckett, Lester and Buchholz in the rotation. If you can't get rid of Lackey, make him the long reliever / spot starter. Some on here are disingenuous when they argue that Aceves is too valuable in relief. They simply do not want Wakefield replaced in the rotation until he breaks the wins record. That is not helping the team. The middle relief can be filled from the current crop plus minor league talent or free agent hard throwers. The best of the bunch can become the set up man, should Bard succeed as a starter. If Bard and/or Aceves fail as a starter , Doubront should get the next shot. Overall , what is the good in having such concern about long and middle relief , when some of your starters are constantly putting you in an early hole?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]If Paps goes via FA, IMO Bard deserves a shot, but should be on a short leash, with a capable back up ready, given Bard's inconsistency last year. "Capable Backup" will be the problem finding to replace Paps if Bard fails. I do not like the Closer by Committe model as it leads to confusion.
    Posted by sindarin-erebor[/QUOTE]

    How do you propose to have a capable backup ready if Bard fails without actually signing a capable backup to begin with?  This leads to exactly what you say you don't like.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Only if Varitek catches them both.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenapplesplatters. Show greenapplesplatters's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]I realize this goes against conventional baseball protocol, but it might be ideal for Boston this year. Assuming Papelbon walks and the team gets the two picks, instead of making Bard the closer and spinning the wheel for 1 or 2 set-up pitchers, why not sign a proven closer and let them swap off the 8th/9th frames? Beyond ego,the only problem I see is getting caught up in role definition, which is bordering the ridiculous. The 8th inning in any close game is just as important as the 9th. If there's an 8th inning blow-up, the 9th frame is irrelevant. It's high time closers adopted this mentality. Yeah, it means paying closer $$$, but the likelihood is that it'll be less binding than inking Paps for 4 years. Bard, IMO, needs a credible back-up so as not to feel it's all on him; do or die. And with the failures of Jenks/Wheeler, perhaps the bar should be set higher. Bard deserves the shot at closer. He's earned it. I think he might embrace the idea of two closers. You call it.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]


    Don't be ridiculous.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    Having 2 lights out guys in the BP can really shorten the game and seems to be the direction a lot of teams are going and having success with.  MIL, DET, NYY, TEX.

    The Red Sox also have an effective way to shorten the game, it is called John Lackey, because when he starts the game is over in 3 innings.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]harness ( my best friend) not much  diference between Tandem Closers and Bullpen by committee  is therehttp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/ gammons/story?id=2083626 Then in 2003, the Red Sox tried their infamous "bullpen-by-committee," which when it turned into a disaster prompted GM Theo Epstein to take his 1B-3B-DH surplus and deal Shea Hillenbrand for Byung-Hyun Kim a trade that throughout the industry was pronounced as a master stroke . I think there is something to be said about having set roles
    Posted by pinstripezac[/QUOTE]

    Yes, there is a difference. Tandem closers would have their set roles: One will pitch the 8th and the other the 9th, depending on match-ups, etc. The understanding is that no longer will the 8th frame be sen as a set-up position. It's importance rivals that of the 9th.

    BP by committee goes more with the hot hand, which is also a good idea in that set roles can be detrimental if, say, the set-up guy is pitching great and got the side out on few pitches. Why bring in another arm when the "closer" can be fresh for the next day's game?

    In addition, having two closers also gives the MGR. leeway in that if one works hard in the prior game, the other is available. How many times have we seen Paps or MO not available to close due to heavy work load or injury?

    I realize Soriano didn't cut it in a non-closer role, but was that due to mindset?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    I question how you hire a lights out closer to share the lights out saves and on top of that get him for very little money when Paps walks.  Do the Sox rely on Theo's expert opinion and do they sign him for 1 yr or 6-7 like Theo seems prone to do.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Tandem Closers

    In Response to Re: Tandem Closers:
    [QUOTE]I question how you hire a lights out closer to share the lights out saves and on top of that get him for very little money when Paps walks.  Do the Sox rely on Theo's expert opinion and do they sign him for 1 yr or 6-7 like Theo seems prone to do.
    Posted by traven[/QUOTE]

    You don't. You pay for a closer with closer money. What I'm saying is that this is one area that shouldn't be short-changed if the FO let's Papelbon walk.
    They can save money and lower the risk by limiting the amount of years.

    BP construction is tricky business.
    And I think it's time they go with a proven commodity who can really cut it in high-leverage situations...in a hitting venue...against A. L. East competition.
    If that means splitting the saves/holds: so be it.
    Nothing wrong with breaking conventional mentality if it serves the team well.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share