Dojji

I doubt it actually, I think it's unlikely that the only way we address staffing problems is by promoting rookies. I anticipate at least one significant trade at the deadline, probably for an outfielder, or alternatively for a third baseman and move shaw into left. I also anticipate that we will probably be looking to sign either corner outfielder, or a starting pitcher, or both, in the offseason.

Exactly, and make no mistake, no one here is writing solely for their own amusement either.

That word. you keep using that word, and in places where it barely applies if it applies at all. It seems to have some significance to you. I wonder now about your taste in footwear. Thought you were Mexican, not Dutch, my friend

Actually no prospect looking to graduate within the next 2 years is blocked by an overpaid veteran. The only "clog" is at the catcher's position, where a very good but not exactly overpaid vet is trying to hang on for one more year before the 2 highly talented young players jostle him off the roster. Every other field position is either set for awhile with no new talent coming soon, already occupied by a young player, or in the case of first base, we're in a position to easily ease the incumbent out if the the youngster we expect to play there in the future develops up to expectations and is ready to go. The only potential clog was Sandoval actually, and Travis Shaw beat him out cleanly in a fair competition. Shaw himself won the job because we have very little big league depth behind him so the job may be his for awhile if he can keep it -- I have my doubts but we'll se. if anything there's a couple positions where we could stand to bring in a veteran upgrade. My concerns about third base aside, I'll name left field and the #2 spot in the rotation for example, and one more veteran reliever wouldn't have hurt anything for that matter.

Course the only real difference between Latin American democracy and the rest of the West is that the Latin Americans are more honest and as a result, less subtle. They'll do their dirty deals in the open where savvy American and Euro politicians and bureaucrats are a little more streetsmart about covering their tracks. But it's the same dirt, on the same hands, everywhere.

Some of the worst bullies I've ever dealt with were smiling politely at the time.

Jung's been getting on my nerves too, though probably for different reasons. Preachy and pretentious I can deal with, bad communication I can't. I despise meaningless cliche catch phrases that communicate nothing, and his recent posts have dripped with them. I can't wait for some real ball to happen so we have something other than dry theory to talk over.

Wouldn't matter if he was biting nails really. He'd still have as much of a right to said what he said as anyone here has to call him on it. Unless he's violating forum rules there's really nothing happening here, and this whole page of the thread is much ado about nothing.

Guys, the white knight forum is over that way -------> if you can't stick to something more or less baseball related, GTFO of the thread until you can. There's no reason to bully UN just because *you think* he's bullying Jung, that's completely contradictory and nonsensical and doesn't paint any of you in a particularly good light. I happen to think UN is right and Jung needs some of the air let out of him, but even if I'm wrong, that's not an excuse for everyone to turn on UN. The opinion that the unsubstantiated nonsense Jung vomits forth is nonsense is in fact nonsense is also an opinion after all. Let Jung handle the fallout of his own posts, and if he doesn't want to do that let him not make said posts, it's a pretty simple basic concept.

you know, call me crazy, and I know the bottom of the rotation doesn't matter very much, but I think it'll be nice to see a knuckleballer take the mound again for his turn in the rotation. Not for any statistical or competitive reason, I just missed being able to see that style of pitcher on the team when Wakefield retired. I'm glad Wright had a good enough spring to crack the roster and I really hope he pitches well enough to justify a spot at the bottom of the rotation longterm. I think there's reason to have some confidence that wright can hack it as a serviceable bottom of the rotation guy, he's looked all right so far both this Spring and in the regular season. Fingers crossed.

UN has been bullying him because he's been sailing in here spouting absolute nonsense with no backup, justification, or evidence at all then just leaving to begin again in another thread. No one has carte blanche to come into a forum, post miles of tripe, and not expect someone to say something. And I say that as someone who has definitely posted my share of tripe over the years when I get caught up in some wild idea or another. I can see both sides on this one to a point, but I do think Jung needs to cool it with some of the worst of the airs he's been giving himself, and I have no problem with forumites picking at him until he does..

I have no doubt in Holt's talents. He could probably put up 1.5-2 WAR starting in left field if he had to. If it was all about Holt, that might be an OK way to use him, but from a team perspective it makes zero sense. It's a waste of his abilities and a threat to our depth to go through with Holt as a longterm LF. A few weeks is fine. Holt starting in left field is a bluff move to bring a trading partner's price down however, it is not a real longterm full season option as it is not a good use of his talent by the team.

No, history suggests we'll have great luck on maybe 2 of those, 2 are going to fall apart entirely, and the results of the rest will be a mixed bag given average luck. We'd need to have average or better results across the board to be a major contender.

Payroll flexibility is not a problem for the Boston Red sox. They can eat and DFA a contract if they have to they've done it before. Another thing to think about: You know that if they do start Holt in left, they HAVE to send Castillo down. There's no way he sits on the bench occupying the same role they already have Young for when the Sox have to leverage their only backup infielder in the outfield as an everyday player, it would be asinine, and it would come back to bite them if Holt is tired and can't go when there's an injury (say, to Pedroia, who nobody will admit it, but we're already all on the Injury Watch in earnest with that man, no question). They WILL assign Castillo to AAA and bring up Marrero if they have so little confidence in his bat that Holt is seen as the better option in left field, because they NEED that depth and versatility far more than they need a guy they don't trust to play effectively in the field sitting around gathering dust and effectively limiting them to a 24 man roster. No sane team would put up with that indefinitely. So assuming basic competency in the front office, Castillo is either traded, starting in left field, or assigned to AAA, very soon now.

Soooooooooooo, dumb question, does anyone know if Sam Travis has ever played left field?

Brock Holt is not an average LF. And he's wasted as an everyday LF, that man can either be a mediocre starter or make a legend for himself off the bench, he's one of the few guys whose value increases as a 10th player. It would be an absolute pity to use Brock Holt as an everyday player. I think that if Castillo can't get it done than it becomes imperative to go make a trade for a left fielder. If he can't hit he and Young are redundant on this roster. Squandering your bench depth isn't an option in this matter. go get a guy and use Holt the way he needs to be used.

They might trade Dyson because they have an abudance in Dyson's role, and Dyson is at a point in his career where he's starting to get a little expensive. They have Paulo Orlando and Terrance Gore to provide speedy outfield depth. that's a position of depth from which one might make a trade. I'm sure we could get a deal done, my only concern is the price might not be reasonable.

I love 2 WAR players filling positions where we have a gap, too. Dyson's WAR the last 3 years is as follows, 1.8, 2.8, 2.2. Average starter level, maybe a bit above, over that 3 year timeframe. if there's enough doubt about Castillo, making a trade for Dyson has to be considered.

Actually I wonder if there might be a window to pick up Jarrod Dyson. His spot on the Royals roster is being threatened by Paulo Orlando. Dyson could be a strong addition to the bench with his super speed, that might be enough to forego the extra pitcher. And the speed option might be just good enough to force his way into the lineup if there's the hole in left everyone is projecting. Dyson doesn't look like much if you use conventional numbers, but he was a 2 WAR player off the bench each of the last 2 years according to Baseball-Reference. it's a better idea than you think the first time you look at him.

Yeah, but it's pretty easy to see why on both sides. The Red Sox are trying to capitalize on Holt's flexibility to allow them to take another pitcher. Murphy would be a perfectly acceptabler 5th OF, but the Sox weren't looking to invest a roster spot in one of those. I do wish we could have kept him though, our outfield depth behind the current big league roster is pretty bare.

They didn't release murphy. He chose to opt out. It was obvious the team was going to carry the extra pitcher and go with a 4 man bench, take advantage of Holt's flexibility to do without the 5th OF (which was the job Murphy was best qualified for) so there was no spot for him. I do think he could have been an asset to the team as a 5th OF. The team just wasn't likely to be built to need one of those.

Right now most teams wouldn't pick up sandoval to fill a hole in a parking lot, much less at third base. You might as well get whatever minimal value you can from him off the bench and try to push the union to install a fitness exception to guaranteed contracts (call it the Sandoval rule -- if you report to camp unable to do your job and you are not injured in the conventional sense, the team shouldn't be expected to pay you as if you are able to do the job)

I hope you're wrong. Some of the very worst ideas that this franchise has implemented in recent years have come from executive dictation. Suggesting that the high executives are still meddling for all they're worth does not make me a happy person.

I think the Sandoval mess confirms that the contracts are not blocking prospects. Shaw is not much of a prospect and he was still allowed to win a job at third base in a completely fair competition. The next block is actually going to be a head on prospect vers prospect throwdown at catcher between Swihart and Vazquez that is only interesting if it ripples into Swihart playing a different position. The only other potential controversy at this time in the near future is Sam Travis at first base, and as good as he's looked this Spring there's no problem with leaving Travis in the oven for at least a few more months. I think that's probably going to be settled at the end of the year by Ortiz retiring and Hanley transitioning to DH to open a spot for Travis, assuming he still deserves one. No one is "blocked" as it is right now.

Sure, in general overview, but the devil's in the details. How that overview translates into taking the roster you have and trying to find ways to make the roster you want is going to vary, sometimes drastically, from any overview you might provide in the interview process -- or at least it had better, because the reality on the ground floor level is constantly evolving..