sk7326

Price signing = fine. Going rate for a top FA pitcher. He has struggled in some harder to predict ways. His history and mechanics said Lester-durable more than a future injury. Counting on Pablo = what else could you do? Especially not wanting to block Devers Moreland = I don't think he thought Moreland would replace Papi. But that between Ramirez, and the young guys there would be enough there. And Moreland would be Mitch Moreland (which is to say - not special, but okay filler) The only really tough move to defend was perhaps the Kimbrel trade - only because of the fungibility of closers.

The point about Sandoval was interesting - and one I certainly thought made sense in the "Pro" section of signing him. Sandoval always had pull power (see his 3 HR WS game) - but largely had a high contact, spray the ball approach. He was like an impatient Wade Boggs, who could just spray the monster with line drives. Alas ...

It helped for them to stink a couple of years in a row - but they also traded everything not nailed down until they had players they thought would be on the next great team. Sox will have the luxury of having good players under contract for a long time - which ones is up to them of course.

That seems to run counter to the new John Henry - I think it is a moot point ultimately. If Dombrowski came back to Henry with - say, Mike Trout for Groome, Devers and stuff ... then this question becomes more interesting. After all, every deal Dombrowski has made has been totally reasonable - I did not agree with all of them (Kimbrel most so) ... but they were reasonable assessments.

IF you are committed to not paying Betts - for instance - the time to trade him is with 1 or 2 full years of control left ... (like how the Orioles really should have dealt Machado before the deadline). Then you can get a legitimate haul - with some near big league ready stuff. But yeah it would be a step back. There are luxury tax limits - but they are largely self-enforcing. Maybe 15% tax is tractable (and this is marginal tax of course) - and 30% is not. But that is ownership's call - too often this is discussed like this is an NFL cap - even if it is more punitive now than it was in the last CBA. I do not blame ownership for wanting to pay less tax. But I also do not blame me for expecting a large revenue franchise to throw its weight around.

There are sufficient finances - if there are not, it is by choice ... those guys under contract for their peak years also become potentially useful trade chips - and probably the actual best way to re-stock the farm if that becomes a real issue

I think that is largely true - although I am also sure he was doing what his owner told him. "I can get Kimbrel for a couple of blocked prospects" "I can get the top starter on the trade market for an 18 year old" ... "I can land a Top 5 pitcher with another year of control" ... It is a bit why the story of Henry telling Dombrowski "Don't do that!" seems far fetched to me ... first, that Henry is that actively plugged in on Sam Travis, second that he has not empowered Dombrowski more or less completely. Dombrowski did not trade those guys because there was no trade to be had. The Sox have traded and graduated a lot of their inventory - how they fill the gaps in is on them. We know Dombrowski can do that too - but it's really on ownership to make that a priority.

Hosmer will probably be the cheapest - and there is a sense of untapped upside there

if we cannot survive past a window where our best players are 25-28 years old - that is a deep indictment of ownership

Bogaerts looks like this past week he is squaring up the ball much better - results have been slow - but more hard contact.

The word "rebuilding" is about setting customer expectations. If a team is going to go young - they are going to lose - a lot. But there is purpose there - especially if the kids have some talent. I don't think the Sox get to that point - at all. 1. Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, Devers will all be 28 or younger. Yes, extensions for Betts and Bogaerts will be expensive (and yes that decision is fair game). But really it is a matter of the payroll and tax Henry wants to carry. This team can probably work with 2 years - reset as a pattern. They might not want to do that - but that is because of ownership's priorities. 2. While the Red Sox could slip in 2020 for some of the reasons cited above - there is almost no chance that Betts or Bogaerts, under contract for 4-5 years would not be a pretty darn tradeable contract (Betts in particular). 3. The prospect inventory is not great right now - that is a challenge for the development guys. Teams cannot push chips around in the amateur market like they used to (ironically this hurts Tampa much more than Boston) ... but do the Red Sox have the scouts and development guys to find those sorts of 2-sport kids and whatnot who blossom and such. This part worries me also. 4. The window of opportunity for this team is 3 years for sure - but it could be longer. It depends on whether ownership wants to choose to do it - and pay the freight. The team is chock full of young, good players - with more than enough financial wherewithall to keep. It is always tempting to treat the tax as a hard cap - because ownership might ... instead of questioning that premise.

devers strike zone command is striking - just how he has handled lefties

I was always in favor of a post-ASB call up. I did not care about the AAA promotion as much. It's really about the kid. It's not like anybody would have been scared of a promotion from AA.

No. I wish he had more power - I'd like more thunder at 1B - but Travis is an okay fallback. Moreland turning back into Mitch Moreland should not have surprised anybody.

You can always monday morning QB this - and I don't blame the team for using some kid gloves on a 20 year old (who has always been the youngest kid in his league) who has not had a ton of high pressure competition. Just glad they took the plunge at all - instead of going for a short term stopgap who did not have a higher return potential. The players staffing 3B cost them games ultimately. It certainly was not obvious in April that Devers was ready for this job.

it's basically akin to the football sideline rule - he has to be "inbounds" when he secures possession (or in the field of play - by whatever the defitinion is) ... his momentum can take him anywhere after, but he has to hold the ball the entire way

Devers had the least to do to provide a major improvement - let's put it this way, he has provided 0.6 fWAR in one week. So he has produced more in one week than the rest of the 3B options have this season.

Hosmer should be cheaper - has enough untapped potential. Devers by most accounts (and a few eye test games) is fine at 3B. Frazier is good as a 3 true outcomes sort.

Wren was a bad GM ... poor relationship with his scouts, stopped bringing in upside (from an org which had a terrific record and network in the area)

Definitely better than a less witty version of those 2 old guy muppets in the balcony

Would have been music to my ears since I had to suffer the Costas-Kaat version of the broadcast

It's just baseball - go figure, you get a great outing from Fister and you think "we stole a game and now we have Sale" ... and then Sale and Kimbrel BOTH stink, but we win anyway. Also - rare that a game which ended with a 3 run walkoff where that homerun might have still been upstaged by that Jackson catch.

lot of personnel changes between those years - both with Boston and its opponents. 162 is a large enough sample - but every season is its own story ultimately. The sample size argument only really holds if the variables are relatively similar. 2012 - Everybody was hurt 2014 - Nobody could hit 2015 - Nobody could pitch Every season is its own story

watching on mlbn - Costas and Kaat are very very hard to listen to

Small sample sizes abound ... caution is warranted. A .471 BABIP ain't forever. At the same time, his walk rate very early is 50% greater than anything Middlebrooks did. From watching, he has much better command of the strike zone as a 20 year old than Middlebrooks every had.