trade deadline

[User Name]

Their profession involves making these evaluations.

 

It's an art, not a science.

[User Name]

Someone here gave me s*** when I said Barnes looked different today and he did back in April/May. He argued his stats aren't much different.

 

My point is Barnes is not breaking off his curveball as he did earlier. Damn the stats. It's matter of time the difference was going to catch up.

 

You can't deceive the eyes forever.

 

Workman had lucky outings where he was hit hard but right at someone. You can't then say well he pitched without given up a run. Stats alone can't measure someone's worth. The guy was getting hammered.

 

They can if you use the right evaluation method. Leave them alone, and have a drink. It'll calm your nerves.

[iortiz]

They can if you use the right evaluation method. Leave them alone, and have a drink. It'll calm your nerves.

 

So you just got here and won’t say hello to your only old Latin American friend iortiz? LOL

 

Great to see you around man. Hopefully you are oks.

[User Name]

So you just got here and won’t say hello to your only old Latin American friend iortiz? LOL

 

Great to see you around man. Hopefully you are oks.

 

We are old, that is true.

[iortiz]

We are old, that is true.

 

Can’t believe it’s been almost 10 years since we got here. Geez!

[Nick]

Still not standing by the comment that was questioned.

 

You said “Barnes hasn’t been the same since stickygate.” Verbatim.

 

That’s not an observation; that’s an accusation…

 

OK, I'm not smart enough to know the difference between the two and what I said.......I'm sure you are correct.

 

Let me say it another way....he's not inducing as many swing and misses on his breaking ball....I have no stats to back it up other than watching him pitch.....is that an accusation or observation? I'm assuming observation is what is preferred.

 

 

Just so you know, I did say I thought he was a wuss before this season. Then I jumped on his bandwagon like a fair weather fan. Now I think he's reverting back. 1st part is probably considered accusation, second and third part are my observations.

 

I do love the charts introduced by MVP....

Edited August 12, 2021 by Nick

[Hugh2]

Maybe we should have been sellers.

 

No, you can't sell when you're in first place, you have to go for it.

 

What I don't agree with though, is emptying out your entire farm, unloading all your cannons, and competing in an inflated market when you have fewer assets than everyone else. In a year in which you're obviously over-acheiving, you don't blow up your future for a chance at a smaller regression. They got a big-name bat who will be here soon (people keep saying we made no big deals), and we have Chris Sale coming back.

 

In a year like this, you have to strike a balance. I'm sure some will never like that, but that's just smart business baseball.

[moonslav59]

No, you can't sell when you're in first place, you have to go for it.

 

What I don't agree with though, is emptying out your entire farm, unloading all your cannons, and competing in an inflated market when you have fewer assets than everyone else. In a year in which you're obviously over-acheiving, you don't blow up your future for a chance at a smaller regression. They got a big-name bat who will be here soon (people keep saying we made no big deals), and we have Chris Sale coming back.

 

In a year like this, you have to strike a balance. I'm sure some will never like that, but that's just smart business baseball.

 

I was joking, but earlier I did advocate selling a couple pieces that were not part of our longer term plans for prospects while also trading for pieces that could help this year and hopefully longer.

[notin]

OK, I'm not smart enough to know the difference between the two and what I said.......I'm sure you are correct.

.

 

The original statement you were called out for (by me) said Barnes has not been the same since stickygate. In the wake of all the Richards and Perez stickygate accusations, you can’t pretend now you were using that solely as a reference point in time. But then I think you know this because TWICE you’ve called me out for calling you out, but in both posts, you stopped mentioning stickygate and started using the calendar months.

 

You were called out for accusing Barnes of cheating, or at a bare minimum unintentionally implying it by forgetting how calendars work…

[oldtimer]

I was joking, but earlier I did advocate selling a couple pieces that were not part of our longer term plans for prospects while also trading for pieces that could help this year and hopefully longer.

 

So did I and I think that made a lot of sense. The Sox knew who they didn't plan to keep. I would guess those players were not of interest to other GM''s but who knows?

[notin]

So did I and I think that made a lot of sense. The Sox knew who they didn't plan to keep. I would guess those players were not of interest to other GM''s but who knows?

 

Obviously we can never anticipate the thoughts of 29 other MLB GMs at once, but there is a safe bet that if no one wanted Perez and Richards on the Sox, other GMs weren’t going to line up to get them, either…

[moonslav59]

Obviously we can never anticipate the thoughts of 29 other MLB GMs at once, but there is a safe bet that if no one wanted Perez and Richards on the Sox, other GMs weren’t going to line up to get them, either…

 

Very likely, even if we paid close to all their contracts minus min wage, but we don't know, if that was ever discussed.

 

I was also thinking of players like Arauz, Potts, Rosario and the like- players likely to be squeezed by Rule 5 additions and FA signings, this winter.

[notin]

Very likely, even if we paid close to all their contracts minus min wage, but we don't know, if that was ever discussed.

 

I was also thinking of players like Arauz, Potts, Rosario and the like- players likely to be squeezed by Rule 5 additions and FA signings, this winter.

 

Certainly they shoud have been in play, and one such player (Chavis) was dealt. Looking at what he got back (and ignoring my scenario, which, while possible, is probably not very likely), what did we expect for those players, all of whom had less MLB experience and success than even Chavis...

[moonslav59]

Certainly they shoud have been in play, and one such player (Chavis) was dealt. Looking at what he got back (and ignoring my scenario, which, while possible, is probably not very likely), what did we expect for those players, all of whom had less MLB experience and success than even Chavis...

 

All I expected for guys like Arauz, Potts and Rosario are promising prospects that are not Rule 5 eligible, this winter- nothing all that great.

 

I expected nothing for Richards or Perez but maybe $500K to $1M in salary relief, beyond the min wage replacement player.

 

We are very tight with the tax line, right now.

[Bellhorn04]

I was joking, but earlier I did advocate selling a couple pieces that were not part of our longer term plans for prospects while also trading for pieces that could help this year and hopefully longer.

 

You were advocating for trading Barnes before he got extended. Can't remember if you also advocated trading E-Rod.

[notin]

All I expected for guys like Arauz, Potts and Rosario are promising prospects that are not Rule 5 eligible, this winter- nothing all that great.

 

 

I have to think Bloom had bigger priorities in July, especially with the August 31 deadline no longer around. Those guys can all be dealt in the wave of pre-Rule 5 Draft transactions that occurs every December...

[moonslav59]

You were advocating for trading Barnes before he got extended. Can't remember if you also advocated trading E-Rod.

 

That's just not true.

 

I did mention it was something to think about, if we were not in the playoff race or tried to be buyers aand sellers like the Rays do. (Yes, I mentioned Barnes, Ottavino & ERod but never said I wanted to trade them.)

[moonslav59]

I have to think Bloom had bigger priorities in July, especially with the August 31 deadline no longer around. Those guys can all be dealt in the wave of pre-Rule 5 Draft transactions that occurs every December...

 

I think it is harder to do that in December, as all teams usually feel the rule 5 crunch, but of course those GMs look ahead, too.

[Bellhorn04]

That's just not true.

 

I did mention it was something to think about, if we were not in the playoff race or tried to be buyers aand sellers like the Rays do. (Yes, I mentioned Barnes, Ottavino & ERod but never said I wanted to trade them.)

 

I clearly remember arguing with you about Barnes. I'll have to check what was actually said.

[mvp 78]

Very likely, even if we paid close to all their contracts minus min wage, but we don't know, if that was ever discussed.

 

I was also thinking of players like Arauz, Potts, Rosario and the like- players likely to be squeezed by Rule 5 additions and FA signings, this winter.

 

Not sure they DFA Arauz just yet, unless they believe Fitz/Munoz can be up and down guys. Potts will be DFA'd. Rosario they may hold onto.

[mvp 78]

We are very tight with the tax line, right now.

 

If you want to win the division, you shouldn't care about the tax line.

[mvp 78]

You were advocating for trading Barnes before he got extended. Can't remember if you also advocated trading E-Rod.

 

Could have been good returns at the deadline!

 

Just think how far you could get under the lux tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moonslav59]

Not sure they DFA Arauz just yet, unless they believe Fitz/Munoz can be up and down guys. Potts will be DFA'd. Rosario they may hold onto.

 

Don't need to DFA Arauz.

 

Add Munoz- DFA Santana (maybe Andriese)

[moonslav59]

If you want to win the division, you shouldn't care about the tax line.

 

DD did that, and here we are.

[moonslav59]

Could have been good returns at the deadline!

 

Just think how far you could get under the lux tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

$1.00 under is the same as $111M under.

[moonslav59]

I clearly remember arguing with you about Barnes. I'll have to check what was actually said.

 

I know I never said we should trade Barnes, if we are in a playoff race.

 

I have mentioned us possibly being buyers and sellers, but not to have a fire sale.

[mvp 78]

$1.00 under is the same as $111M under.

 

I'm an accountant and I know that's not true.

[mvp 78]

DD did that, and here we are.

 

DD had multiple first place finishes and a flag. Bloom isn't there yet.

[mvp 78]

Don't need to DFA Arauz.

 

Add Munoz- DFA Santana (maybe Andriese)

 

You mentioned that he'd be squeezed out by rule V guys. You're just saying reduced playing time?

[notin]

Don't need to DFA Arauz.

 

Add Munoz- DFA Santana (maybe Andriese)

 

The Sox are going to have to DFA two players in the very near future in order to get Sale and Brasier on the 40 man roster. Three if they want to add Munoz.

 

Santana is extremely likely to be one of them. He’s had his moments, but overall has been awful and on this team his versatility is redundant.

 

The other one could be Andriese, especially if he is not expected back this year. Or it could be one of the lower level minor league guys not exactly dazzling anyone, like Potts or Rosario. Marwin might go, most likely to accommodate Munoz.

 

Players not likely to be DFAd much to the chagrin of many on this forum include Dalbec, Cordero, Robles and Davis…