A Realistic View at 2020: Part II

[notin]

All I have really been saying is that the primary reason Mookie was traded is that they didn't want to give him the contract he wanted.

 

To me that's all the reason they needed.

 

Do you strongly disagree with that?

 

I agree with that.

 

I just saw it as an inevitability a while back based on other decisions.

[Kimmi]

All I have really been saying is that the primary reason Mookie was traded is that they didn't want to give him the contract he wanted.

 

To me that's all the reason they needed.

 

Do you strongly disagree with that?

 

I do not disagree with that. That's the bottom line, for sure.

 

I disagree with what I am interpreting as your attempt to simplify it to that point, with no consideration to the many other factors that have to be taken into consideration.

[notin]

It's not just the 30 million a year. It's the risk that the player will get injured or decline but still be paid the 30 million for years, which would cripple a small market team.

 

It would cripple a small market team. A larger market can take that risk, but not too often apparently...

[Bellhorn04]

I do not disagree with that. That's the bottom line, for sure.

 

I disagree with what I am interpreting as your attempt to simplify it to that point, with no consideration to the many other factors that have to be taken into consideration.

 

But you have strongly argued that a 12 years, $365 commitment is simply insane. So why isn't it enough of a reason?

[Kimmi]

It's not just the 30 million a year. It's the risk that the player will get injured or decline but still be paid the 30 million for years, which would cripple a small market team.

 

But they could afford it, yes? However, they have to consider the effects that such a move would have on the team. Just like the Sox do. While a move like that would not cripple a team like the Sox to the same extent, it would certainly limit flexibility for years to come.

[Bellhorn04]

But they could afford it, yes? However, they have to consider the effects that such a move would have on the team. Just like the Sox do. While a move like that would not cripple a team like the Sox to the same extent, it would certainly limit flexibility for years to come.

 

It all comes down to the definition of "afford", of course. Having enough money available to buy something doesn't mean you can afford it.

[Kimmi]

But you have strongly argued that a 12 years, $365 commitment is simply insane. So why isn't it enough of a reason?

 

It's insane because of the overall impact it would have on the team for years in so many other areas.

 

But you are right on this point. Even if the Sox had a strong farm and were willing to spend without limit, that would be an insane contract, IMO.

 

I still don't agree that it is reason enough when you're talking about the Sox. I don't believe that they simply looked at the $365 million and said 'no' without considering everything else.

[notin]

But you have strongly argued that a 12 years, $365 commitment is simply insane. So why isn't it enough of a reason?

 

Because it’s less insane than 7 years $217 mill for an older, inferior, higher risk player...

[Bellhorn04]

Because it’s less insane than 7 years $217 mill for an older, inferior, higher risk player...

 

That is debatable, of course. Any player can cease to be productive in a heartbeat.

 

It's also a real possibility that the Red Sox believed Mookie would get more than the $365 million. The pandemic may have shaved 10% or so.

[notin]

That is debatable, of course. Any player can cease to be productive in a heartbeat.

 

It's also a real possibility that the Red Sox believed Mookie would get more than the $365 million. The pandemic may have shaved 10% or so.

 

It’s not debatable statistically. Price’s age, position and career length made him a higher risk period.

 

As for Mookie’s pre-pandemic price tag, that is a fair point...

[dgalehouse]

Like it or don't like it , the top players are expensive . And it is tough to win without the top players . How much to spend on top players or on the entire team is a decision all teams have to make . Sometimes you can be very astute or very lucky , but generally you get what you paid for . This idea about Bloom finding " gems " is wishful thinking . You have a much better chance of finding gems in the jewelry store than you do in the landfill.

[Bellhorn04]

It’s not debatable statistically. Price’s age, position and career length made him a higher risk period.

 

Position, yes. Pitchers are riskier. And we needed a pitcher. So it's not really apples to apples.

[Bellhorn04]

This idea about Bloom finding " gems " is wishful thinking . You have a much better chance of finding gems in the jewelry store than you do in the landfill.

 

It's not just wishful thinking. The Rays have been very successful these last few years on a tiny budget. That's a fact.

[a700hitter]

It's not just wishful thinking. The Rays have been very successful these last few years on a tiny budget. That's a fact.

Tampa has had many more years of suck than success with its tiny payroll. If you are going to depend on finding cheap "diamonds in the rough" and not also spend on established talent, you will have more suck than success.

[Bellhorn04]

Tampa has had many more years of suck than success with its tiny payroll. If you are going to depend on finding cheap "diamonds in the rough" and not also spend on established talent, you will have more suck than success.

 

From their inception in 1998 to 2007, it was 10 years of pure unadulterated suck.

 

But from 2008 to 2020, 13 seasons, they will have 6 playoff appearances, assuming they hold on this year. Plus 2 other seasons where they won 90 games but missed the playoffs.

 

I think that's pretty impressive considering their payroll and the fact they're in the same division with the Yankees and Red Sox.

[moonslav59]

So the Sox should put everything on Downs? I don't like the idea of the Red Sox depending on a guy named "Jeter".

 

Seriously, so what happen if you "bridge to Downs" and he just plain sucks? I know he is a ranked prospect (BA #86), but you know who else was a ranked prospect at one time? Jose Peraza. (BA #54 in 2015 and BA#66 in 2016). They don't all work out as planned.

 

Get a real 2B and worry about Downs when he makes it an issue. Let's not pretend he is Joe Morgan-in-the-wings...

 

Then, you simply deal with that hole, then.

 

We have so many holes to fill, we need to decide which ones are most likely to be filled from within the system and address the ones that are least likely to be filled within the system. Clearly, pitching is the area where we have the least in-system hopes, especially within a year two. CF is probably second.

 

While 2B and 1B look weak, having Dalbec, Potts and Casas at 1B and Downs with a slew of marginal wanna-bees could be pushed off until mid season 2021 or later. Also, signing a one year 2Bman and calling him a "placeholder" for Downs does not mean the idea sucks just because Downs fizzles out. It just means we address the 2B opening with more resources after 2021. Pedey's deal drop soff the ledger as well as a few others.

[moonslav59]

They changed the rules for one year and for a pretty good reason IMO.

 

Just be glad the re-set counts.

 

I get the reasoning, and yes, I'm hopeful the reset will allow the wallet to be re-opened, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Sox haven't had a pick above #7 since I can remember, and when we finally suck enough to get one, the rules are changed for just this one year.

 

I can understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.

 

We suck way more than we did last year, but it matters little.

[moonslav59]

It's anyone's guess how Price will do the next 2 years.

 

Of course, but IMO, I would not sign Price to a $32M/2 year deal this winter.

 

It's an opinion not a fact.

[Bellhorn04]

I get the reasoning, and yes, I'm hopeful the reset will allow the wallet to be re-opened, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Sox haven't had a pick above #7 since I can remember, and when we finally suck enough to get one, the rules are changed for just this one year.

 

I can understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.

 

We suck way more than we did last year, but it matters little.

 

It's not a real season. It's 60 games, tops. Some teams won't even play 60. Players have opted out or are missing time because of the pandemic.

 

That's not a real season.

 

If it was a real season, the Red Sox might be more motivated to not suck as much.

[moonslav59]

Or price and Betts for may and verdugo!

 

No way that would ever have happened, even if we threw in Chavis and Duran.

 

Maybe Gonsolin.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course, but IMO, I would not sign Price to a $32M/2 year deal this winter.

 

It's an opinion not a fact.

 

I totally get that. To me it's all about his health. If I knew he was 100% healthy I'd say it's a reasonable signing.

 

All a moot point anyway, of course.

[moonslav59]

I was on board with the deal. I was and am happy with the return. I know that some would have preferred Graterol, but for me, if Graterol only projects to be a reliever and not a starter, than Downs is the better value. Yes, we could have asked for another pitcher from the Dodgers. I'm guessing that Bloom did that and felt that Downs was the overall better get.

 

It's odd that I was against signing Price for his contract amount, yet I was also against trading him as part of the Mookie trade. In hindsight, the trade worked out very well, but at the time, I was looking to compete and we needed the starting pitcher.

 

I'd have trade Betts, Price ($16M/yr) and Chavis for Verdugo & Gonsolin and maybe tried to add someone else to get Downs, too.

[Bellhorn04]

I'd have trade Betts, Price ($16M/yr) and Chavis for Verdugo & Gonsolin and maybe tried to add someone else to get Downs, too.

 

I doubt the Dodgers would have much interest in Chavis.

[moonslav59]

All I have really been saying is that the primary reason Mookie was traded is that they didn't want to give him the contract he wanted.

 

To me that's all the reason they needed.

 

Do you strongly disagree with that?

 

It could be more about wanting to reset in 2020 and dumping half of Price's deal, so we'd be better situated for 2021 and beyond- maybe even to re-sign Betts, despite many here thinking that was all but impossible.

[moonslav59]

Tampa has had many more years of suck than success with its tiny payroll. If you are going to depend on finding cheap "diamonds in the rough" and not also spend on established talent, you will have more suck than success.

 

More suck than success? That's highly debatable.

 

Sure, count their first years of existence against them, and 10 years of sucking out of the gate was worse than it should have been (no season with over 70 wins), but since 2007 they have had winning seasons in 11of 13 years with only 2016 being really bad.

 

12 losing seasons

11 winning seasons

 

Yes, technically more sucking than success, but they only started as an expansion team in 1998. If you just discard their first 2 years, the script is flipped.

 

2008-2020 Wins

1138 Yanks

1130 Dodgers

1096 Cardinals

1078 Red Sox

1071 Rays

1038 Angels

1028 Braves

1027 Guardians

1025 Rangers

1024 Cubs

 

7 less wins at a fraction of the budget gives some of us hope that Bloom can do better with more money.

[notin]

Like it or don't like it , the top players are expensive . And it is tough to win without the top players . How much to spend on top players or on the entire team is a decision all teams have to make . Sometimes you can be very astute or very lucky , but generally you get what you paid for . This idea about Bloom finding " gems " is wishful thinking . You have a much better chance of finding gems in the jewelry store than you do in the landfill.

 

But if you’re not allowed to spend, shouldn’t that impact the final product?

 

The Sox still have the third highest payroll in MLB, which should serve as a reminder that spending heavily does come with a potential risk in itself...

[moonslav59]

It's not a real season. It's 60 games, tops. Some teams won't even play 60. Players have opted out or are missing time because of the pandemic.

 

That's not a real season.

 

If it was a real season, the Red Sox might be more motivated to not suck as much.

 

Like I said, I get the reason, but we'd have sucked over 162 games, too. It's not because players missing time due to the pandemic, either. Other teams were hurt more by that than the Sox, and we still sucked more.

 

I can see why they changed the rules and it makes sense, but we are clearly one of the worst teams in MLB, right now, and we will not be getting the usual rewards for sucking so badly.

 

I'm not sure how they decided to weight 2019 vs 2020, but to me, 2020 numbers should count more, despite being less games.

 

Did they change the draft order after the strike shortened seasons?

[notin]

No way that would ever have happened, even if we threw in Chavis and Duran.

 

Maybe Gonsolin.

 

Friedman made it evident he was not parting with top tier pitching prospects, which was one of the reasons Minnesota got involved at all.

 

To me it looks like Bloom isn’t taking chances with “high risk” younger pitchers with health concerns, which is why he passed on Graterol. Now the Dodgers were in a better position to take on that risk, and it’s been working out for them. Hey, another advantage of having a good farm; you don’t have to be as careful on younger players...

[notin]

I doubt the Dodgers would have much interest in Chavis.

 

Not sure many teams do. Maybe Oakland...

[moonslav59]

I totally get that. To me it's all about his health. If I knew he was 100% healthy I'd say it's a reasonable signing.

 

All a moot point anyway, of course.

 

That's a huge "if" and the main reason I would not sign him at $16M x 2.

 

Of course, there's a significant chance he proves me wrong.

 

Knowing what you know, now, if you were the Sox GM and had $70M to spend this winter, would you use $16M on Price on a 2 year deal?

 

Knowing he turns 36 during next season and will have a total of 359 IP over his previous 4 seasons?