a700hitter

it is possible that Bogaerts has a better 2018 than Machado, but it is extremely unlikely. He is not closed to being as skilled a hitter as Machado. The bat speed is just not there. As for your position that our offense is fine with the current crew, I think you are wrong. If there are no changes to this lineup, it will continue to suffer from the same fits of inconsistency that plagued it last year.

In the bullpen, his deficiencies would not have been as exposed. He was not capable of going through a lineup a second time. His career probably would have fallen apart, but it might have taken longer.

And there is a lot of what I would consider misguided indoctrination in that statement, but just a reminder that politics is verboten here. There are many thousands of forums to engage in political nonsense. Take it elsewhere.

Even communist states have capitalism. In communist states, capitalism happens on the black market. Nations in European Union are heavily socialist.

Ethical owners? Maybe you made the reference in your reply or you projected it. I didn’t see that reference from anyone.

Thanks Ben. Bobby V knew that the kid didn’t have the makeup to be a starter. Ben and Bard wanted it. I remember reading early on in Spring Training that Bobby V asked the kid if he was sure that he wanted to pursue starting after a couple of rocky outings. To me, Bobby knew that the kid didn’t have it and he was looking to give him a way out. Bard was stubborn and didn’t know his own limitations and the wheels fell off in an ugly train wreck.

Is anyone taking up the argument that owners are ethical? I must have missed that part of the thread.

There are negatives to contingency fee arrangements, so there is a lot of disclosure that is required.

The only thing that keeps an agent from screwing a client is that the agent's compensation is directly tied to the player's compensation, so they always have a self interest in maxing out a player's compensation.

Are we arguing that a lawyer is bound to present evidence that is adverse to his client? That simply is untrue. The attorney's first and foremost duty is to zealously represent his client. An attorney who presents evidence adverse to the interests of his client would quickly find himself in all sorts of ethical trouble with his local bar association. BTW, the ABA has nothing to do with any of this. An attorney presents evidence contrary to the interests of his client only when compelled to do so by a court -- this can be in many forms including pre-trial discovery. An attorney cannot lie about the existence of evidence or suborn perjury. There are ethical rules as to what an attorney must do if he realizes that his client is testifying untruthfully, which is why a defense attorney will almost never ask his client is he committed the crime. The one time when an attorney must voluntarily disclose evidence that is adverse to his client's interests is in a criminal case -- a prosecutor must voluntarily disclose all exculpatory evidence. As for sports agents and their ethics, please don't make me laugh. They are the scum that scum scrapes off its shoes. If people think they are not leaking information regarding the details of existing bids, you are kidding yourself.

LOL!!! Their marketing department could use your fertile mind.

I disagree.

The Red Sox will find revenue streams. I don't doubt that.

There are TV ratings to consider. It is my understanding that those have not been good in the last few years. That translates into big bucks.

It has average dimensions in CF and LF. Nothing especially deep. LFC at 390 is the one tough spot, but that tapers down drastically as you move toward LF.

That should do it.

Got it.

With regard to options, I thought that once you were on the minors that the team only had to use an option if they brought you up to the majors and wanted to send you back down. That’s why o am confused why we would have to use an option on Swihart if we don’t bring him to Major League camp this spring training. How does that work?

Is this a Rule V situation, in which he would have to be retained on another team's MLB roster?

Some people watch a lot of baseball. You don't need to tack a guy for 162 to evaluate them. Professional scouts can evaluate players in a weekend or less. Non-professionals need more time, but you don't need 162.

Would he have to be optioned even if he is not invited to Spring Training and just stays on a minor league roster and does his spring training with the AAA team?

Just in case you missed my prior post where I asked these questions about Swihart: Would Swihart have to be DFA'd if he doesn't make the team out of Spring Training? Would they still have to DFA him if they don't invite him to Spring Training?

Would he have to be DFA'd if he doesn't make the team out of Spring Training? Would they still have to DFA him if they don't invite him to Spring Training?

What has Swihart done to establish that he would be a proficient MLB first baseman or hitter? His career has been stalled for quite some time. He would have to go on an incredible tear in Spring Training to earn a roster spot.

current players and managers should not get a vote. Only HOF members should get a vote. They would not dilute their own accomplishments. That HOF next to their signatures carries a hefty $. Less players would make it if the HOF members voted, imo.