sk7326

The moves are helpful - and if you are going all in, do it for a stud on a great contract in his prime. His delivery screams TJS, but his results don't - and so you have to give Sale the benefit here. Now the risk is obvious - you are prospect poorer and less equipped to handle some level of deus ex machina. Fortunately the core of the team is young and athletic - and so there should not be the same risks of growing old overnight that there have been in Detroit. It is also interesting that the Red Sox may have moved to a post-development machine era the same season where that approach saved the Cubs. Homegrown, cost controlled stuff is still the right way to build a core - and normally the preference is to keep the guys you think will be stars. (and to be fair to Dombrowski, identifying Devers as a superior option to Moncada is a completely reasonable assessment) Moreover - this will also be a test of how bad the brain drain at Yawkey has been. Are enough of the guys who have built this roster of young talent still around to Dombrowski still has currency to trade, and still has stars to promote. Hard to dislike the Sale trade even with the significant price. Like the Thornburg trade quite a bit also. The Moreland signing probably won't do much one way or the other.

having that many top 100 guys is a compliment in itself

It's baseball ... postseason is such a roll of the dice ... but barring health, would be very surprising for the Sox not to make it back to October

Right profile - starter with wipeout stuff who for whatever reason had trouble finding consistency in the rotation. (Miller's slider command is not good enough to start, but terrific if you don't have more than one look at it) Buchholz is better than your Miller or Wade Davis as a starter, but the idea is sound.

Rodriguez IS replenishing the system - the guy at the end of the season showed star potential

He's here - how he got here doesn't matter ... use him in the way that will help the most

I think they will look - but Buchholz could be immensely valuable as a swingman ... you hate paying 13M for it, but it would not be a ripoff either.

The White Sox did fine - less major league certainty than I expected, but they got a ton of upside.

I have no idea how the Red Sox pulled this off without trading Eduardo Rodriguez - you'd think the ChiSox would want some major league help coming back. Moncada could be that help - but it is an open question - though he is an excellent prospect.

Moncada fell behind Devers in the org ladder for 3B/COF ... and besides good players cost stuff. The Sox have too good a core not to aim high. Sox did this without giving up Groome, Devers or (most remarkably since I thought the White Sox would want major league help) Rodriguez.

This is a really strong deal for Boston - it is hard to cut it any other way.

I think if it were Devers, it would have made the "main story". But seriously ... Price-Porcello-Sale-Rodriguez shapes out to be a hell of a Top 4 with Pomeranz, Buchholz and Wright as very useful swing guys. I am a little surprised the Sox could do this without Rodriguez - who showed significant flashes of stardom last season.

Is he? Moncada gave some interesting indications but the range of outcomes is very wide.

my favorite tweet on the topic https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/806201886151938048

His sky high post Single A strikeout rate did ... but either way a tremendous get. I have a sense Devers might stay - I think the org might have chosen him over Moncada for 3B of the future.

Back up 1B - if that is the only need then who cares? Thornburg struck out 34% of hitters last year. You get his arb years without any real core upside being dealt. Knocks everybody down a peg to Kimbrel and allows them to ease in Carson Smith. Also gives a little flexibility with Uehara - who I'd still throw a 1 year deal at.

Depends on what you want - after all if you are looking at WAR to be a comprehensive "who's the best" measure it is destined to fail. For what any WAR measure is - a normalized sum of everything measurable a player does - it's good. Like any measure, you want consistency and that it is measuring what it is trying to measure. WAR (regardless of flavor - and teams use their own) fits the bill - much moreso than say RBIs.

Three years is a lot in the development curve

It's about staying current with the industry. One expects that out of someone covering, say financial markets. Seems like the least the writers can do - get current to reflect how front offices are actually making decisions.

Forearm problems = uh oh

I think it's like life. There are some bad eggs, and some true leader of men - and a bunch of guys in the middle. Beckett - in terms of chemistry hooey - was probably the middle. It went well when things went well and the reverse. (it's why chemistry is always a trailing factor to talent and success)

What does that even mean? All the criteria I can think of to define "most valuable" in this context comes down to; * Pretty good teammates (so your team contends) * A bad backup (so you are indispensible) Essentially Trout is penalized for having bad management. That team would be early 2000s Tigers bad without him - that sounds like a huge difference also. There is no win scenario for the Red Sox this year that did not involve Betts making a significant leap.

Certainly the way Beckett poisoned the clubhouse in 2007 was an issue.

For a combined $18M ... without the trade the roster spots would not have been there - although the money under Henry's sofa cushions probably would have been.

I think the trade was fine ... I always point out the 2013 title came because of (in no particular order) A. A totally out of nowhere year by Victorino (and for that matter Mike Carp, which allowed the Sox to operate a credible LF platoon) B. Our good players finally being healthy C. A remarkable (but not exactly out of nowhere) season by Uehara. There is not a ton which the trade directly contributed to otherwise.