sk7326

Bradley wouldn't - although he should be the first guy they offer for anybody. There is power in telling somebody "I have a solid starting CF who will cost you $1.5M for the next three years". That has real value. But I think the Mets would want Betts - as well they should.

Technically Hoyer and Cherington did the Beckett thing

Hard thing with dealing Harvey is that Betts and/or Bogaerts almost has to be in the deal because the Mets are built to contend, and it'd be hard for Alderson to make a deal that will hurt the major league club in the short run. If this were a true sell-off then something like Devers (if you are a believer to the extent that a lot of the industry is) and another guy might be sufficient. But the Mets are going to want major league return. You could argue the same for Cleveland although there are more financial constraints there, but that roster looks promising - that team when Lindor got settled in started to look very good. Both of those teams will want some major league return in a big deal.

Well that and hitting a homerun in 6 straight games

There will be fewer - and likely better openings than Seattle. (which has that combination of poor farm and ownership who does not want to tear down)

There are openings every year. There will be an opening in Minnesota coming up for instance, and perhaps even Toronto (although that sure seems less likely). Seriously, you think that the Seattle and Anaheim positions are obvious plums, the same as Boston's in terms of plusses?

Seattle is a very shaky job. And besides a lot of these jobs involves interviewing owners - what are their priorities and what are they looking for? Gigs differ greatly. Philadelphia would have been a good fit - Cherington and McPhail would have made a lot of sense together.

They have the money to make a strong move ... plus the market provides a strong financial incentive ... the wins pay off in a way they don't in say Tampa Bay. The Porcello extension is fine. It's not wholesale - and clearly he did not pitch well for 3/4 of the season - but that is the going rate for a pitcher of his relative merit (on the high side granted), who is young enough to project some modest improvement. The path to him being worth the contract is not difficult - and they are not locked into any physical decline. The Panda contract was the diciest of the three because I just don't think he's that good. I know why you give him a big deal - they had literally nobody at 3B, he is 29 so there was some projection if you squinted hard enough, and Fenway was tailor made for his Wade Boggs-esque spray chart. But those were opinions I did not share. Ramirez I thought made sense as a 3B, and less so as a LF (although his impossibly bad fielding at LF was not something a reasonable person could have anticipated given the long history of potted plants, cinder blocks and guys named Kevin Mitchell who have patrolled it adequately). But he was brought in to hit, and that he did not hit was surprising. If that part gets fixed, the fielding sins are tolerable - I am going to assume a return to the infield will help him rise up to "non Vine-worthy". The Red Sox will undoubtedly try to move him - and the market for Ramirez might not be as barren as it looks (especially if the Red Sox are just trying to deal him, return be damned) because the contract is not that long and his non-hitting reads "injury-driven fluke" for now.

The youngsters to me was less of an issue than assuming recurrences of a couple of seriously lucky breaks (the amazing production from the corners). I'd have sincerely preferred trading for a Justin Upton over clicking your heels and hoping Mike Carp, Daniel Nava and Victorino could spit out that level of work again.

I don't know - the evidence was strong and betting on games has always been the most sacrosanct of the things to not do. If anything the evidence that Rose did it is worse now than it was in the Dowd report.

The critics have a point given the number of last place finishes. That said, there is definitely a strain of fandom which preferred 2011 to 2013 - since complaining about not winning is something which many have lots of experience with. This team is certainly not thinking of rebuilding - with the outlook of the position players, that would be batty. Essentially the Sox will go into the 2015/6 offseason in the same place the Cubbies did - bursting with position talent, light-ish on pitching. There is no lucky break like saving Arrieta's career alas, but then they had nobody approximating ERod's promise.

I think he actually made bigger mistakes - or for that matter, actual mistakes - in the 2013/4 offseason.

You are right - it won't happen. What is funny is that the hypothesis of letting Ellsbury go has been more or less ok. He was solid last year - but this year we got "injured and sucky" Ellsbury. In other words, welcome to his whole career.

No depth at all. The weird thing was how they did not adjust at all even though clearly DeGrom did not have good fastball command and was throwing his breaking ball more when he needed a strike. But no adjustments.

Baseball in the US - baseball in latin america has much much more flare

And Ian Desmond too. And Denard Span will be on the market too. Between Trea Turner, Michael Taylor, Giolito and Reynaldo Lopez (who might be more of a swingman/releiver), they have a lot of help on the way. They are going to be contenders next year with any sort of decent manager. (and the candidates that have been mentioned, Bud Black, Alex Cora, perhaps Torey Lovullo, would qualify)

I agree that Castillo's value is still speculative. But the threshhold to be a worthwhile guy at that price is not that high. I expect he will be in Boston though regardless.

It's fun to me. And seriously, if there was one time where it was earned, THAT was it.

Starters ERA is like 4.20. Cueto's stuff is a real concern, although he did a nice job last night. That said, Astros surprisingly did not make him work that hard ... they are a crazy strikeout team, but usually a good walk one, and was not the case last night. If you believe in inexperience in a big game, last night was evidence. I think the 2003 Sox in terms of standard deviations above the league average were the best of the lot - only other two this century above it were 2007 Yanks and this year's Toronto team.

Toronto is the best team in the field given current circumstances (since the Cards won all those games but had so many injuries coming down the stretch). Even if they lost, that was the case ... baseball is funny like that. Best team loses in the tournament all the time - just how the cookie crumbles in baseball (as opposed to the NBA). ALCS will be fun ... the big question is whether the Royals lousy starting rotation can hold off that ridiculous lineup (one can argue as good as anything we've seen since the 2003-4 Red Sox) enough for the Royals other edges to kick in. (their defense, their bullpen, their ability to make contact) Also, there is the matter of the tactical managing, where Gibbons seems to be a clear plus over Yost.

Oh I don't think so. They have either one or two true aces (depending on how you look at it), and a rotation which underachieved but does not lack ability. They have one of the league's top 3 position players (and another who'd crack a reasonable Top 20, injury problems granted). Their bullpen is a disgrace, and their manager in 2014 was a comically bad continuous source of tactical mistakes. Between working the bullpen and replacing the manager with somebody minimally competent, they should be back in the hunt.

What is clear is that playing left in Fenway does not seem to correlate with being a good athlete, or even being a good outfielder in general. I just look at the absolute train wreck Carl Crawford was there, which made no sense at all. By contrast, Manny - who was a horrendous outfielder in general, seemed to know what he was doing.

That is very possible - now Benintendi cannot be dealt yet (well, except as a PTBNL). But Castillo's salary is not a drag if he builds on the 2nd half of last season. He's not that far away from being a "12 million" player in 2015/16 baseball dollars.

Kinsler was 31 and coming off of a down season - really it was a trash for trash deal at the time. Clearly it worked out for Detroit - Kinsler has managed to remain solid in years that you'd expect a decline. Castillo could be moved as part of a deal but not as a centerpiece. His salary is actually really fair for the guy he probably should be - not a steal, but not a ripoff. But it would be hard to expect someone to swallow the deal when a team doesn't have to. Clearly the market for Ramirez will be explored ... I do think there could be a small market for him, because the deal is pricey, but not long ... and there is some reachable upside there. Teams with a corner infield opening will at least kick the tires.

Last year first one since his return from TJ where he was below 150 IP. So the other two factors are more relevant. And the price while high could be mitigated by the single year of control. Extending a 27 year old is much more palatable. Really any such trade would test how stupid and reactionary the Nats are. A lot of their ills will be cured by a managerial change (not all, but it is significant) - the potential upgrade from Matt Williams to even an Alex Cora would be noticeable.