A Realistic View at 2024: Part III

[Randy Red Sox]

57 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I think you are underselling Abreu or overselling average middle inning guys.

Who is an average middle inning guy? Bernardino? Kelly? Wink?

I don't see an average middle man being equal to a good defensive RF'er that is top 30 in OPS and has 5 years of control at a low cost.

I do think he's more of a major piece in a package with a better player, but stand alone, he gets 2 mid guys or a very good 8th inning guy or maybe a decent #4 SP or top #4 type.

come on Moon.  all the other MLB  teams know we are about to have a glut in the OF and Abreu probably doesn't fit. that will not help his trade value

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

come on Moon.  all the other MLB  teams know we are about to have a glut in the OF and Abreu probably doesn't fit. that will not help his trade value

That does not effect his value one penny. If we trade Yoshida, he can DH. 

We don't need to include him in the SEA deal.

We could also trade Anthony for a better pitcher and just keep Abreu for 5 years.

[Duran Is The Man]

2 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

none of this will matter unless the team makes some SERIOUS  improvement with the pitching. 

we all say this every year but nothing ever happens. i don't see why next year will be any different.

[moonslav59]

6 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

we all say this every year but nothing ever happens. i don't see why next year will be any different.

We have given out contracts that could have netted very good to great pitchers (Devers, Story & Yoshida's,) but instead we spent it on batters.

We paid Gio almost $19M a year, which is nearly as much as the highest two combined, from 2020-2023.

There are signs of spending- just not on pitching, and when we have spent on pitching, we have swung and missed, badly.

Will that change? Who knows?

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We have given out contracts that could have netted very good to great pitchers (Devers, Story & Yoshida's,) but instead we spent it on batters.

We paid Gio almost $19M a year, which is nearly as much as the highest two combined, from 2020-2023.

There are signs of spending- just not on pitching, and when we have spent on pitching, we have swung and missed, badly.

Will that change? Who knows?

They don't spend enough and when they do spend, they make really bad picks.  (I'm excluding Devers, that was a "retention expenditure".)

It's that combination that has been sinking us since Henry's madness came on in 2019.

[mvp 78]

31 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

They don't spend enough and when they do spend, they make really bad picks.  (I'm excluding Devers, that was a "retention expenditure".)

It's that combination that has been sinking us since Henry's madness came on in 2019.

Devers was a "keep the peasants from revolting" expenditure. 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

They don't spend enough and when they do spend, they make really bad picks.  (I'm excluding Devers, that was a "retention expenditure".)

It's that combination that has been sinking us since Henry's madness came on in 2019.

I totally agree on not spending enough, and in some ways the Story and Yoshida signings did not even come close to replacing who we lost beforehand and afterwards. My point was that we spent on batting not pitching. It was not to imply we have spent enough.

I disagree on the Devers signing "not counting." His contract was nearly 50% higher than any other one ever handed out by the Sox, and it marked a radical change from choices to trade Betts and ley Bogey walk. Had we let Devers walk and signed a $300M pitcher, it might have made a bigger difference. Hell, we could have signed two $155M pitchers with his money. That blows away the $39M/2 deal handed to Gio.

Three major points:

1. When we spend big, it is on batters.

2. When we spend on pitching, we swing and miss badly, most of the time.

3. We spent $36M/2 on Jansen, $18.75M/2 on Barnes, $17.5M/2 on Martin- all RP'ers. These total costs are 3 of the highest 4 contracts given to pitchers since Nate & Sale back before 2019.

We have not focused on the rotation for 5 years. It shows.

[Larry Cook]

13 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

none of this will matter unless the team makes some SERIOUS  improvement with the pitching. 

Agreed! I hope we sign fried, and trade for quality young starter. 
then sign two quality relievers. A lefty and a righty. (I realize that relievers reliability is inconsistent year to year.) 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

Agreed! I hope we sign fried, and trade for quality young starter. 
then sign two quality relievers. A lefty and a righty. (I realize that relievers reliability is inconsistent year to year.) 

Yes, make some serious efforts and hope we get it right, for once... not that other efforts were "serious."

[Larry Cook]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, make some serious efforts and hope we get it right, for once... not that other efforts were "serious."

I think a lot of money comes off the books and we can splurge on one free agent pitcher and some relievers and still get under the 200 million budget!! 
 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

I think a lot of money comes off the books and we can splurge on one free agent pitcher and some relievers and still get under the 200 million budget!! 
 

$200M is $41M under the tax line. 

Man, we are setting the bar lower and lower.

[Larry Cook]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

$200M is $41M under the tax line. 

Man, we are setting the bar lower and lower.

One of the writers I trust said the budget was 200 million. I have no idea if he is right, but it makes sense 

[moonslav59]

13 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

One of the writers I trust said the budget was 200 million. I have no idea if he is right, but it makes sense 

I doubt that would ever be leaked, even if true. We ended 2023 at $203M ($226M lux tax.) According to cots, we started 2024 at $171M, but they have our lux tax number at $225M. This counts the $17M player benefit and other costs, so if they are talking payroll budget only, that number would be below $208M.

Cots has us at $135M before arbs are decided, but we don't have many, since most players are still pre-arb. Plus, all our arb players are year 1, which is a traditional low cost year.

The tax line is $241M, but minus the benefits and bonus pools, it's really like $222M. While I can see JH going light for another year, I hope we spend close to the line. A $200M player budget would still give us money to spend on 3-4 pitchers, but trading for 1 would focus the winter budget on 3 rather than 4 pitchers or 2 rather than 3.

I don't know what to expect. I'm not sure anyone, outside the organization knows, either. (Maybe a decision is yet to be made.)

 

[Old Red]

On 9/9/2024 at 10:26 PM, moonslav59 said:

Devers back up to .900.

O'Neill may pass him (.894) and passed him in HRs, tonight with his 28th and 29th.

Ref jumped up to .836 with 2 dingers, a double and single.

We now have 5 players in the top 30 in OPS (300+ PAs)

.900 Devers

.894 O'Neill

.860 Duran

.836 Refsnyder

.831 Abreu

The Red Sox have scored 3, or fewer runs in 14 of their last 20 games, and have gone 7-13 in that time. These stats may look good on paper, but pretty meaningless in the success of the team. Must be a lot of stat padding in the good games.

[Bellhorn04]

Devers had a .709 OPS in August and has a .480 OPS in September with 1 RBI.  He's playing hurt, obviously.  Not sure he should be playing at all.

Then again, hardly anyone else is hitting, either.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Casas and Story both struggling mightily after their returns.  Not surprising of course.  

Such is life for the 2024 Red Sox.  If it wasn't for bad luck they'd have no luck at all.  

[Hugh2]

On 9/11/2024 at 11:14 PM, Randy Red Sox said:

come on Moon.  all the other MLB  teams know we are about to have a glut in the OF and Abreu probably doesn't fit. that will not help his trade value

I don't believe this one bit, the Sox don't have to trade abreu, and the Sox have the leverage of going to any other suitor.  If you have an asset, you can easily put it out to bid. 

I don't think Seattles abundance of pitching hurts their trade value one bit. 

[Hugh2]

40 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Devers had a .709 OPS in August and has a .480 OPS in September with 1 RBI.  He's playing hurt, obviously.  Not sure he should be playing at all.

Then again, hardly anyone else is hitting, either.

 

I never understood this.  I get you NEED Raffy, but if resting him for one week did the trick then just sit the man.  He's not helping the team with his .480 OPS.  The team is better with a healthy Devers, but they would obviously be better with him resting up right now.  Heck, they might have an extra win or two if they just gave him some time off. 

[Hugh2]

53 minutes ago, Old Red said:

The Red Sox have scored 3, or fewer runs in 14 of their last 20 games, and have gone 7-13 in that time. These stats may look good on paper, but pretty meaningless in the success of the team. Must be a lot of stat padding in the good games.

Time to trade our talented young pitching for some hitters.  We don't have anything coming up thru the pipeline!!!!!

[Hugh2]

12 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

$200M is $41M under the tax line. 

Man, we are setting the bar lower and lower.

I think this season will be the true testament if we are "setting the bar lower" 

Better than not chance they don't make the playoffs, but they have been playing meaningful baseball into september for the first time in a while with a younger roster and guys coming up.  

This is offseason would be the time to "raise the bar" I could justify them not spending after the 2022 season, but this year is a compltely different animal. 

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think this season will be the true testament if we are "setting the bar lower" 

Better than not chance they don't make the playoffs, but they have been playing meaningful baseball into september for the first time in a while with a younger roster and guys coming up.  

This is offseason would be the time to "raise the bar" I could justify them not spending after the 2022 season, but this year is a compltely different animal. 

That's how I see it.

Although one could argue spending big after 2025 makes more sense, we could make moves that help in 2025 and beyond, plus a couple 1 year deals that give us flex to make bigger splashes in 2026.

There is no excuse to spend just to $200M.

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think this season will be the true testament if we are "setting the bar lower" 

Better than not chance they don't make the playoffs, but they have been playing meaningful baseball into september for the first time in a while with a younger roster and guys coming up.  

This is offseason would be the time to "raise the bar" I could justify them not spending after the 2022 season, but this year is a compltely different animal. 

To me the "meaningful baseball in September" thing is a scam, one that Henry and his minions would love us to embrace.

They have the identical record they did last year at this time!

They just caught a break with the Rays and Jays falling back.  But they're not good enough to take advantage.

The "meaningful games" are being played with a miniscule chance of making the playoffs.

They should be officially toast any day now.

If I sound pissed I am.  Not at the team but at Henry and his minions.

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

If the Sox finish under .500 this year it will be the first time they've been under .500 3 years in a row since 1992-1994 (if you count 1994).  Before that you have to go back to 1964-1966. 

[Hugh2]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

To me the "meaningful baseball in September" thing is a scam, one that Henry and his minions would love us to embrace.

They have the identical record they did last year at this time!

They just caught a break with the Rays and Jays falling back.  But they're not good enough to take advantage.

The "meaningful games" are being played with a miniscule chance of making the playoffs.

They should be officially toast any day now.

If I sound pissed I am.  Not at the team but at Henry and his minions.

 

 

Wheres the scam? everyone plays a 162 game schedule. 

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Wheres the scam? everyone plays a 162 game schedule. 

The scam is when you say we're playing meaningful games in September for the first time in a while it makes it sound like we've improved from 2022-2023.  We haven't.  The record is the same.  There's no improvement at all.  

[Bellhorn04]

The grim reality is the Sox are 21-31 in their last 52.  That's a third of a season of playing like a 65 win team.

If they go 3-5 in their next 8 that'll match the 24-36 record of the 2020 team.

 

 

 

[Hugh2]

19 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The scam is when you say we're playing meaningful games in September for the first time in a while it makes it sound like we've improved from 2022-2023.  We haven't.  The record is the same.  There's no improvement at all.  

I get that you want to go by record alone, but I still feel this organization is in better place today than they were a year ago. 

They have work to do. But there is less to do between 2024-2025 than there was between 2023-2024.

I get fan frustration, but that's not a scam that's my opinion. 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I get that you want to go by record alone, but I still feel this organization is in better place today than they were a year ago. 

They have work to do. But there is less to do between 2024-2025 than there was between 2023-2024.

I get fan frustration, but that's not a scam that's my opinion. 

Yes, I agree the future looks better.  But the present needs a reality check.  We're still just a .500 team and one that is trending down.  

I don't think they're in a position to go for it in 2025.  I see them kicking it down the road one more time.

 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

The Red Sox have scored 3, or fewer runs in 14 of their last 20 games, and have gone 7-13 in that time. These stats may look good on paper, but pretty meaningless in the success of the team. Must be a lot of stat padding in the good games.

I have always said that...

[Hugh2]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, I agree the future looks better.  But the present needs a reality check.  We're still just a .500 team and one that is trending down.  

I don't think they're in a position to go for it in 2025.  I see them kicking it down the road one more time.

 

Ok, I get it now.  I don't disagree.  What I mean in my original comment was that the future looks brigther today than it did a year ago.  And I realize that's little consolation when everything sucks