mvp 78

I just want them to retain the greatest positional player they've developed since Ted Williams. That's all I'm asking.

I hope Bloom is able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

If you want to trade him, you better hope he has a torrid start to the season (which is hard to do in Portland depending on weather). I'm fine with moving any player they have. Starting pitching depth is embarrassing for this org right now. Aside from Mata and Ward, are there any other pitchers that could potentially ever contribute as starters? Does Groome even make the majors?

The beef is that they let the best positional player since Yaz walk out that door just to save money. I'll never agree with that logic. I care about the product on the field.

A reminder that I'm the one stifling conversation here. I have not moved any goal posts. Yes, I'll will find stuff to say to back up my opinion as will people that think Mookie shouldn't be signed. That's what everyone does. I've consistently said that they can and should pay Mookie. Anyone else is fine to disagree with that. It doesn't bother me. It seems to bother other people when I say that ownership should spend the money rather than putting it in their pockets. I wonder why?

Non sequitur. I don't know anyone that called him cheap. He's just getting under the lux tax this year to save himself money. He's not the Pittsburgh Pirates owner. Nobody every claimed that he doesn't spend because he's "cheap."

Why does Henry let guys like Larry (2011) and DD walk all over him?

@JMastrodonato Ron Roenicke said after the Red Sox pitchers had a slow start last year, the goal is for all starters to make six starts this spring. Big change from a year ago. The nerve of this man!

@joonlee Chris Sale has been dealing with the flu that turned into a mild case of pneumonia during the last week and a half. Roenicke talked to him on the phone today, and said “he feels really good.” Sale will be re-evaluated on Friday.

In 2012, it's because he intervened and hand picked BV. In 2014, it's just a WS hangover. In 2015, it's because they listened to Werner or whoever and decided that Panda and HanRam were needed for fan interest. Yuck. I'll give him a pass for 2014.

And most last place finishes as well. It's been quite the crazy roller coaster with this ownership. I think that's why everyone that still follows the Sox like we do get emotional about it.

My guess is that they are going to need a few guys to come in throughout the year. IMO, the competition doesn't end on April 1.

We'll see. I'm holding out hope that he mashes in the first few months like Devers did and they can just plug him in. Of course this is selfish since I just want to see a good product this year.

As a great philosopher once said "I see a red door and I want it painted black." This is in reference to Henry not caring about fans or the Red Sox, he just cares about the black numbers on the page.

You wrote this after a lot of "what if" comments: "There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team." In the current baseball system, the only way to get a top player is to give them a long contract. I proposed that giving a long contract is ok to Betts because you'll have over a decade of managing the team payroll to make one overpriced contract not the end of the world. You didn't refute my point at all. You just said you think my idea was s***. (I guess THAT isn't a conversation stopper???) So when I then say "let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of," it's not trying to stop the conversation (which you already wanted stopped) it's explaining that if you aren't going to pay any long contracts, you'll never get the top FA's to sign. The only good that does for the team is save payroll. It doesn't put a better product on the field for sure. Any argument that is "there are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good" is basically an argument for not signing anyone because YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN. I mean, every good decision could wind up being bad someday. Does that mean you never make any decisions? No, it means you should at least try to keep the best players around to the best of your ability. Otherwise, what are we doing here? We're just rooting for the team to best manage payroll, which only helps the owner.

@alexspeier A clarification about the position of Jeter Downs’s locker in the Red Sox clubhouse, currently between JD Martinez and Mitch Moreland - the placement was partly for the sake of expediency, in a Red Sox clubhouse that has more players (65) than any spring in memory. @alexspeier The Sox assigned Downs the one open spot in their clubhouse. But while there’s benefit to his proximity to vets, he’s likely to be moved if, for instance, the team signs OF Kevin Pillar.

I read that it was the only open locker and that he'll be moved if the Sox sign Pillar.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/57049/moonshot-payroll-flexibility-is-a-lie/ Rob Arthur @No_Little_Plans Teams love to talk about payroll flexibility when they trade big contracts, and how getting rid of payroll commitments will allow them to spend more later. But teams that drop their budget in one year typically don't get the $ back in the next four.

That's a perfect way to keep your clubhouse mood happy.

Go with what works. Your idea was to no longer sign the top players because they would take up too much room in a non existent salary cap league. The only person that helps is the owner.

When Downs gets 100% HOF vote...

thicc

New idea: let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of!

"Yep, I really out Manfredded myself this time. Time for a sardine and pineapple pizza with ranch sauce."

No, they are going to trade Downs because his first name makes a lot of fans upset.