The 2026 Red Sox Foundation & One Possible Plan

[Hugh2]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

I do agree that Eyanson looks better than anyone else we might have drafted, instead. I get your point about the added money and overslot signings. I'm glad we got both Phillips and Eyanson.

I hope the Priester deal pays off for us, at some point. I think the odds that one of the three guys we got (or Eyanson) will give us some plus value is pretty high.

Oh I have no ideal if he's as good as anyone we drafted, I mean if you go by pre-draft rankings he's the 2nd best player drafted despite being the 4th one taken but it's obvious the Sox like him.  My main take away is, I think it's appropriate to tie him into the Priester return.  I think Priester netted us John Holobetz, Yophery Rodriguez, Marcus Phillips AND Anthony Eyanson.  

 

[moonslav59]

27 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Oh I have no ideal if he's as good as anyone we drafted, I mean if you go by pre-draft rankings he's the 2nd best player drafted despite being the 4th one taken but it's obvious the Sox like him.  My main take away is, I think it's appropriate to tie him into the Priester return.  I think Priester netted us John Holobetz, Yophery Rodriguez, Marcus Phillips AND Anthony Eyanson.  

 

I get your point and don't disagree. My point is, if we didn't get Phillips and Eyanson, wefd have gotten two other players at likely two different bonus payouts,.

[notin]

25 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Oh I have no ideal if he's as good as anyone we drafted, I mean if you go by pre-draft rankings he's the 2nd best player drafted despite being the 4th one taken but it's obvious the Sox like him.  My main take away is, I think it's appropriate to tie him into the Priester return.  I think Priester netted us John Holobetz, Yophery Rodriguez, Marcus Phillips AND Anthony Eyanson.  

 

That’s a stretch.

While I get your point that the money saved helped sign Eyanson, the Sox were going to draft someone in that slot regardless.  It’s not like they even knew Eyanson would still be on the board.  It’s like saying taking Williams Jerez was a good second round pick because the Sox saved enough money to go way over slot on Mookie Betts.

Phillips was from a pick in that deal the Sox otherwise dont have.  It’s not the same…

[notin]

13 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I get your point and don't disagree. My point is, if we didn't get Phillips and Eyanson, wefd have gotten two other players at likely two different bonus payouts,.

Really it comes down to that by including a pick, Milwaukee essentially upped the Sox draft pool money.  But Milwaukee had  nothing to do with how Boston allocated that money.

 

Its like that Bible story - and I will do my best here - where the master gives each of his three servants several talents (which were large sums of money) and the one loser servant buries them in the backyard.  Meanwhile the second one built a house of sticks or something while the third one drafted Marcus Phillips and used the savings on a later round pick.  So the master naturally chastised the one who buried them, until he learned they had blockchained into Bitcoin.

Sunday school was a long time ago and clearly too early in the morning.  Bottom line - don’t drink and drive.  Plus no one credits the master for anything in that parable…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

52 minutes ago, notin said:

Its like that Bible story - and I will do my best here - where the master gives each of his three servants several talents (which were large sums of money) and the one loser servant buries them in the backyard.  Meanwhile the second one built a house of sticks or something while the third one drafted Marcus Phillips and used the savings on a later round pick.  So the master naturally chastised the one who buried them, until he learned they had blockchained into Bitcoin.

I only know the one about the master's son, traded with two other pitching prospects for Victor Martinez. The latter was a really good hitter in Boston for a year-and-a-half -- .313, .865 -- but the Sox let him sign with Detroit because they didn't like his catching skills, and already had Big Papi at DH.

Victor became the Tigers' DH, kept raking, and led the 2013 ALCS with 8 hits and a .364 batting average (compared to a paltry .091 by DavidOrtizDavidOrtiz). The next year he led the league in OPS and finished 2nd in MVP voting when Mike Trout won his first.

The miracle had to be that a freshwater fish from New Jersey finished 1st or 2nd in MVP seven times by the age of 27.

[mvp 78]

2 hours ago, notin said:

Any chance Arizona hires you to be CBO in the next 3 months?

Haven't been looking, so no. 

[Hugh2]

3 hours ago, notin said:

That’s a stretch.

While I get your point that the money saved helped sign Eyanson, the Sox were going to draft someone in that slot regardless.  It’s not like they even knew Eyanson would still be on the board.  It’s like saying taking Williams Jerez was a good second round pick because the Sox saved enough money to go way over slot on Mookie Betts.

Phillips was from a pick in that deal the Sox otherwise dont have.  It’s not the same…

It's actually not that much of a stretch AT ALL. Eyanson was their largest bonus above slot, and Phillips was literally their largest bonus given below slot.  They don't take Eyanson without taking Phillips. 

 

And I don't think it's anything like the Jerez/Betts comp you said, because that was a different system where there were no real penalties. Since the new system has been in place not a single team has gone above 5% over their bonus pool.  And even then, the comparision isn't between Eyanson and Phillips, it's grouping them together as a point of interest to watch in comparision to what Preister does.  Because I think you don't get those two guys without that comp pick. 

[notin]

40 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

It's actually not that much of a stretch AT ALL. Eyanson was their largest bonus above slot, and Phillips was literally their largest bonus given below slot.  They don't take Eyanson without taking Phillips. 

 

And I don't think it's anything like the Jerez/Betts comp you said, because that was a different system where there were no real penalties. Since the new system has been in place not a single team has gone above 5% over their bonus pool.  And even then, the comparision isn't between Eyanson and Phillips, it's grouping them together as a point of interest to watch in comparision to what Preister does.  Because I think you don't get those two guys without that comp pick. 

Definitely not Phillips as his pick was a direct result.  The Sox might have taken Eyanson anyway and saved bonus money on another pick.  Maybe they don’t take Godbout and draft a more singable player instead.  
 

Whether or not there is a penalty system is immaterial.  Most teams have budgets for signing pucks and the system for DECADES was to draft signable players and let the higher ranked picks fall as needed. 

[notin]

2 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

I only know the one about the master's son, traded with two other pitching prospects for Victor Martinez. The latter was a really good hitter in Boston for a year-and-a-half -- .313, .865 -- but the Sox let him sign with Detroit because they didn't like his catching skills, and already had Big Papi at DH.

Victor became the Tigers' DH, kept raking, and led the 2013 ALCS with 8 hits and a .364 batting average (compared to a paltry .091 by DavidOrtizDavidOrtiz). The next year he led the league in OPS and finished 2nd in MVP voting when Mike Trout won his first.

The miracle had to be that a freshwater fish from New Jersey finished 1st or 2nd in MVP seven times by the age of 27.

Absolutely.  The Sox were wrong to keep Ortiz especially in the 2013 ALCS.  I mean, other than one measly game-tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game two and prevented the Sox from going down 0-2 at Fenway, what exactly did he do in that series?

[moonslav59]

54 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

It's actually not that much of a stretch AT ALL. Eyanson was their largest bonus above slot, and Phillips was literally their largest bonus given below slot.  They don't take Eyanson without taking Phillips. 

 

And I don't think it's anything like the Jerez/Betts comp you said, because that was a different system where there were no real penalties. Since the new system has been in place not a single team has gone above 5% over their bonus pool.  And even then, the comparision isn't between Eyanson and Phillips, it's grouping them together as a point of interest to watch in comparision to what Preister does.  Because I think you don't get those two guys without that comp pick. 

You are correct, but we do get somebody. That somebody, even if at slot might be just as good. Although not likely has highly regarded, once you get this far down, it's sort of a crap shoot.

Also, if we did not get the draft pick, maybe we get better prospects.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

Absolutely.  The Sox were wrong to keep Ortiz especially in the 2013 ALCS.  I mean, other than one measly game-tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game two and prevented the Sox from going down 0-2 at Fenway, what exactly did he do in that series?

LOL.

VMart could play 1B, too, but Napoli did okay, too.

[moonslav59]

It's easy to dry coulda, shoulda, woulda on Gio by having the option triggered by 21`0 IP over two seasons and not 140 in 2025, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure he comes back.

Another one was letting Pivetta walk.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3 hours ago, notin said:

Absolutely.  The Sox were wrong to keep Ortiz especially in the 2013 ALCS.  I mean, other than one measly game-tying grand slam in the 8th inning of game two and prevented the Sox from going down 0-2 at Fenway, what exactly did he do in that series?

"This is our Motor City."

[Hugh2]

16 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You are correct, but we do get somebody. That somebody, even if at slot might be just as good. Although not likely has highly regarded, once you get this far down, it's sort of a crap shoot.

Also, if we did not get the draft pick, maybe we get better prospects.

I apologize but that's a mute point.  If win the world series instead of finishing dead last with 110 losses we get the 30th pick instead of the 1st pick.  No one can argue "hey maybe that guy would be better" could it happen? sure, guys bust all the time but why make that argument?  Also we netted a pick, the 33rd pick and who we took 87 instead? who knows but Eyanson was the 2nd highest ranked guy we took ahead of both our second round picks.  Odds are he is going to be better than who we would have picked. 

 

Who we WOULD have picked we will never know but we definitively KNOW they took Eyenson with the money they saved, so regardless of who else they would have picked it's irrelevant when talking about eying eyenson into the future for the Priester return. 

[Hugh2]

17 hours ago, notin said:

Definitely not Phillips as his pick was a direct result.  The Sox might have taken Eyanson anyway and saved bonus money on another pick.  Maybe they don’t take Godbout and draft a more singable player instead.  
 

Whether or not there is a penalty system is immaterial.  Most teams have budgets for signing pucks and the system for DECADES was to draft signable players and let the higher ranked picks fall as needed. 

All hypothetical, but we know for a fact they saved the most money on Phillips and went the highest over on Eyanson.  We can agree to disagree all day long but I'm going to always tie EYanson into the return. 

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I apologize but that's a mute point.  If win the world series instead of finishing dead last with 110 losses we get the 30th pick instead of the 1st pick.  No one can argue "hey maybe that guy would be better" could it happen? sure, guys bust all the time but why make that argument?  Also we netted a pick, the 33rd pick and who we took 87 instead? who knows but Eyanson was the 2nd highest ranked guy we took ahead of both our second round picks.  Odds are he is going to be better than who we would have picked. 

Who we WOULD have picked we will never know but we definitively KNOW they took Eyenson with the money they saved, so regardless of who else they would have picked it's irrelevant when talking about eying eyenson into the future for the Priester return. 

That's about as mute a point as I've ever seen. It's even moot.

I agreed with you. I think we get some plus value from the trade. I'm higher on Holobetz than some, but I also like Phillips chances and agree that Eyanson is a consideration- just maybe not 100%.

If Eyanson and/or Phillips sucks, my point is not moot, since you tied them together with the money aspect, and this sort of debate is always going on.

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

All hypothetical, but we know for a fact they saved the most money on Phillips and went the highest over on Eyanson.  We can agree to disagree all day long but I'm going to always tie EYanson into the return. 

They saved about $400K on Phillips and paid B Morgan $350K more, too.

[notin]

32 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

All hypothetical, but we know for a fact they saved the most money on Phillips and went the highest over on Eyanson.  We can agree to disagree all day long but I'm going to always tie EYanson into the return. 

I suppose thsts your option.

Of course shouldn’t considering him part of the return entail him (or his pick) being a Brewer if the deal never happened?

[drewski6]

23 hours ago, notin said:

Really it comes down to that by including a pick, Milwaukee essentially upped the Sox draft pool money.  But Milwaukee had  nothing to do with how Boston allocated that money.

 

Its like that Bible story - and I will do my best here - where the master gives each of his three servants several talents (which were large sums of money) and the one loser servant buries them in the backyard.  Meanwhile the second one built a house of sticks or something while the third one drafted Marcus Phillips and used the savings on a later round pick.  So the master naturally chastised the one who buried them, until he learned they had blockchained into Bitcoin.

Sunday school was a long time ago and clearly too early in the morning.  Bottom line - don’t drink and drive.  Plus no one credits the master for anything in that parable…

Ah yes, the ole forgotten 1.5 testament

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, notin said:

I suppose thsts your option.

Of course shouldn’t considering him part of the return entail him (or his pick) being a Brewer if the deal never happened?

???? not at all, the Brewers have a completely different draft board, and as we all know teams take guys who fall that they have money saved up for.  Maybe the Brewers go underslot with that pick, or maybe they go underslot with their first pick and over. 

 

In the end, it doesn't matter what the Brewers do.  It matters what Priester does.  

[Hugh2]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

That's about as mute a point as I've ever seen. It's even moot.

I agreed with you. I think we get some plus value from the trade. I'm higher on Holobetz than some, but I also like Phillips chances and agree that Eyanson is a consideration- just maybe not 100%.

If Eyanson and/or Phillips sucks, my point is not moot, since you tied them together with the money aspect, and this sort of debate is always going on.

IF Eyanson and/or Phillips suck, your point is not moot.  Well maybe maybe not. If they both suck it's likely a bad trade, but if one of them becomes a star I'd argue it was an good trade.  I'll admit it's an easier argument for Phillips but I firmly believe in putting Eyanson in there as well. 

 

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

22 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

It's easy to dry coulda, shoulda, woulda on Gio by having the option triggered by 21`0 IP over two seasons and not 140 in 2025, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure he comes back.

Another one was letting Pivetta walk.

I could have sworn most of us wanted Pivetta to walk .

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I could have sworn most of us wanted Pivetta to walk .

I've been a big Pivetta supporter and have claimed he's been better than many claim he is (was,) but even I was not banging the drum to bring him back.

I was not high on Buehler, but he did get just 1 year, so I was not upset or complaining we chose him over Nick.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I've been a big Pivetta supporter and have claimed he's been better than many claim he is (was,) but even I was not banging the drum to bring him back.

I was not high on Buehler, but he did get just 1 year, so I was not upset or complaining we chose him over Nick.

A lot of us were excited about obtaining Buehler. Anticipation.

[notin]

12 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I could have sworn most of us wanted Pivetta to walk .

I assumed he would accept the QO…

[notin]

3 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

???? not at all, the Brewers have a completely different draft board, and as we all know teams take guys who fall that they have money saved up for.  Maybe the Brewers go underslot with that pick, or maybe they go underslot with their first pick and over. 

 

In the end, it doesn't matter what the Brewers do.  It matters what Priester does.  

Different draft board or not, the Sox could have never traded Priester and still selected and signed Eyanson with the same pick.

It’s not like tying Wade Miley to the AGon/Crawford/Beckett trade with the Dodgers.  The Six dealt players (De La Rosa and Webster) from that trade that they otherwise would not have had in order to acquire Miley.  The Sox still had that same pick that they used to select Eyanson.  The slot money could have come from that pick and another pick…

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

I assumed he would accept the QO…

I thought so, too.

[Hugh2]

46 minutes ago, notin said:

Different draft board or not, the Sox could have never traded Priester and still selected and signed Eyanson with the same pick.

It’s not like tying Wade Miley to the AGon/Crawford/Beckett trade with the Dodgers.  The Six dealt players (De La Rosa and Webster) from that trade that they otherwise would not have had in order to acquire Miley.  The Sox still had that same pick that they used to select Eyanson.  The slot money could have come from that pick and another pick…

You're comparing what definitviely happened to what might have happened. 

They may have made other moves to get Eyanson, they might not have.  They had that extra pick for a long time, there was a lot of thought that went into how and where they scouted with that in mind.  It's just as likely, if not more likely that they don't.  But regardless, we know what they did do and they did save money with that pick to sign Eyanson.  He's tied into the compensation. 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I could have sworn most of us wanted Pivetta to walk .

I think when a tiny portion of us mentioned that Pivetta could get a QO, it was because he would either refuse and Sox would get compensation OR the worst is the Sox get a dependable back end guy for one more year. Most posters disagreed that the Sox would even consider giving him a QO. 

Ultimately, he signed for 4/55 which seems like a great deal to me. I wish the Sox did that instead of Buehler. 

[moonslav59]

52 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I think when a tiny portion of us mentioned that Pivetta could get a QO, it was because he would either refuse and Sox would get compensation OR the worst is the Sox get a dependable back end guy for one more year. Most posters disagreed that the Sox would even consider giving him a QO. 

Ultimately, he signed for 4/55 which seems like a great deal to me. I wish the Sox did that instead of Buehler. 

Agreed, and the AAV was almost half of Buehler's and maybe enough to keep us under the tax line.