User Name

jung is a big boy, he can talk for himself. Stick to your own discussions please.

You're not a talent evaluator. Stop pretending you are. You keep whining about a bunch of players, mentioning things they don't struggle with, while glossing over the things they do struggle with, and it's like nails on a chalkboard. Stop.

Not at all. They're putting out a 200 million payroll this year. It's possible (and plausible actually) they fill all of their holes for next year while actually decreasing payroll. If two of the contracts can be salvaged (Porcello/Hanley being the most likely), they just need a couple of their young elite propects to take their next step in what amounts to natural progression to finish off this team's core. Then the spending will be minimal.

First off, it's unlikely they all suck, but let's assume they all do. The current obligations for the 2017 Red Sox amount to 148 million, with Ortiz retiring, Uehara leaving, Buchholz leaving, Hanigan leaving, and Tazawa leaving. Castillo has options, so he stays in the minors. Porcello moves to the BP in a swingman role, and the one of Panda/Hanley who sucks less stays, the other is cut/traded eating most of his salary (the Sox have eaten big contracts before, so it's safe to assume they would now). Assuming a 190 million soft cap, 10 million in arb raises, and holes in the outfield, 1st or third, the BP and the rotation, this is what a Red Sox offseason MAY look like: C Cristian Vasquez 1B Sam Travis 2B Dustin Pedroia 3B Travis Shaw SS Xander Bogaerts LF Andrew Benintendi/Yoan Moncada CF Jackie Bradley Jr RF Mookie Betts DH Hanley Ramirez SP David Price Eduardo Rodriguez FA/trade (3/45, options include Buch himself, depending on his platform year, Doug Fister, CJ Wilson, Andrew Cashner, Jesse Chavez, etc) Joe Kelly (Battle between Porcello, Wright, Brian J, Henry Owens, etc) RP Craig Kimbrel Carson Smith (LH setup man from FA, options include Brian Matusz, Eric O'Flaherty, Manny Parra at 3/18) Matt Barrnes Tommy Layne/Robbie Ross Jr Noe Ramirez/Brandon Workman/winner of ST battle Rick Porcello Bench: Blake Swihart (backup catcher, they have him learn other positions) Brock Holt Chris Young (FA 1B/OF like Garret Jones) That's around a 183 million payroll, and a possible contender, health permitting. That's just my take on it, and obviously it's just a fantasy scenario, but it proves that the Sox aren't "clogged" anywhere. At all.

You can not pay pitchers, when you can consistently develop them. The problem is that it's almost impossible to consistently develop starting pitching unless you tilt your scale way over to the pitching side of the development process, and that's in direct disagreement to the Sox' "draft the best talent possible" philosophy. That's why baseball as much art as it is science. Nothing works 100% of the time.

No, it's a realistic 84 win team with the potential of winning as little as 78 (with a 2012 redux) or as many as 95 (with a 2013 redux). There's a wide range of outcomes for this team. Also, you're using "clogged" in a nonsensical way here. Clogged with what? Dead money? This is the Boston Red Sox, and they're getting out from under some contracts and could terminate a couple more. They have a limit, but they still have the capacity to spend. Roster? That's not even an issue for reasons stated here ad-anuseum. They can pretty much fix this on-the-fly for next season when probably one (perhaps two) of Benintendi, Travis or Moncada is ready for primetime, and they have a clearer picture of what their pitching actually is. Next year is a weak market for pitching, but they already have an ace, and just need to build around him. Most of the heavy lifting to finish this team's nucleus is done.

I've got a Tool song to play you back.

This post needs to be framed and hung somewhere in plain sight for all of us to see.

I think she means the designation of Shaw as 3B and Holt as main part of a LF platoon, not the albatross contracts.

A clogged out roster means problems with the allocation of positions in said roster. There is no such problem here. And also, as you have said many times, this is a team that cannot claim poverty, especially with some significant expenses coming off the books after this year. They don't have roster problems, that is a rationalization you're making in order to magnify the problems (which are real) Cherington left behind.

Holt playing LF has nothing to do with payroll flexibility either way. Castillo will be making his full salary whether he plays or not. The payroll situation is what it is right now. Any variable would have to come from outside.

jung, you continue to make s*** up, as usual. All of the hoopla about Castillo not being able to hit breaking balls is pure made up BS, like most of the other stuff you post on here. The hilarious part is how f***ing smug you come off "Oh, the casual fan doesn't have the understanding for this and this". Well, neither do you, and the casual fan doesn't make so much s*** up. Castillo's problem is literally the opposite of the BS you have been spouting. I asked some people who have forgotten a hell of a lot more about baseball than what you or I will ever know, and the immediate answer was "he can't hit quality moving fastballs" and sure enough, on FanGraphs' pitch/100 tool, the only types of pitches he actually hit with some semblance of eefectiveness were straight fastballs, sinkers and curveballs, while being slightly below average on sliders. But what he's absolutely terrible at hitting are two-seamers and cutters. It's moving velocity on the top half of the zone what he absolutely can't handle.

You keep saying they have "clogged up roster positions" when it's clear they haven't. Stop making that point, it's clearly incorrect. The fact is, they have clogged up payroll, and even as a big market team, they are feeling the effects. They may have been able to get another starter this offseason were they not saddled with Panda/Castillo. I will go on the record saying I think they can still recoup value from Castillo, but we'll see.

Are they going to have a righty-righty platoon then? Because of Orlando and Gore both hit from the right side. And it's not like the Royals are paupers, they're coming off a WS win and have increased their payrrol significantly. They may actually trade one of the other two, less established players, but Dyson is their main guy, the only one who hits lefty, and provides game-changing speed. The idea makes no sense for the Royals, who aren't just going to trade him because "they have depth". Other teams aren't a feeding tube for the Red Sox. Trades need to make actual sense for the other team too.

Why would the Royals trade Dyson though? And what would we give up? What they want is an Orlando/Dyson platoon ideally, and would have to receive an overpayment to give him up.

You sure love your Royals Dojji.

That's......a reasonable post from jung. Is this real life?

It'd break. Crate it is.

"Marginally" is quite the understatement fine sir, but they both suck. I feel the Bern bruh!

Not really. We'd just have more people riding in small motorcycles and donkeys, and not working.

Kelly's problem has always been sequencing. He can blaze a four seamer or snake a two-seamer with the best of them. The problem is that, as Lovullo famously said last year regarding Kelly himself "An MLB hitter can hit a bullet". His real problem is when, like yesterday, he can't throw anything but fastballs for strikes. If a hitter can sit on velocity, he will smash the ball.

How does it appear to be smoke and "mirror"? Barnes' problem at the ML level has been consistent location, and consistent strikes are what he's been throwing since September of last year.

It's a joke. Away from politics then. Don't worry, I think the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton, for the record.

"Raw power" and "playable" or "gametime" power are not the same thing. Hillenbrand had big power projection, but to hit with power consistently, you need to be able to swing at strikes, and square up breaking balls.

A bag of Panda is like 1/4 of the entirety of Panda. The acccurate statement would be "for a crate of Panda".