sk7326

Law's words about the Red Sox ranking (I'll post the full writeup when it pops up 2morrow) 20. Boston Red Sox Last year: No. 20 https://theathletic.com/3112765/2022/02/07/mlb-2022-farm-system-rankings-keith-law-grades-all-30-teams-on-prospects-with-the-dodgers-at-no-1/

Hard to say. He has always been a big fan of the Epstein administration and admires the current one. The thing listening to his podcast is that he points out that you should take his rankings with a grain of salt - there is always going to be a wall between what can be known publicly. But he does note that Baseball America, MLB.com, Fangraphs and ESPN, all get to actually see the players they rank. It's not statistical analysis or writing down what coaches say. It's also worth noting that the lifestyle associated with working for The Athletic or ESPN - just from "quality of work/life balance and money" could outweigh a scouting gig, even a high level one. Law has noted that his evaluations tend to favor ceiling somewhat in the "ceiling vs probability" equation.

No - violating is posting a paywalled article in its entirety.

I will admit the pandemic got me very into the Premier League. The thing with soccer games are that they are short and very consistent - 45 minutes without stoppages, a quick halftime and then 45 more minutes, you're done in 2 hours. The entertainment level varies a lot by team (Liverpool is extremely entertaining) but it's hard not to get into it when the fans get it going. Cricket is like baseball except with 1 inning (for the IPL format) with 120 pitch limit.

Seriously ... "launch a live arm firehose" is still the best approach for building a bullpen. Results year to year are SO volaile ... every organism with 2 major league caliber pitches, come on down!

You started in 2000, which is great ... but if you're assembling a list like this, 1999 seems close enough to note ... where Pedro put up a staggering 11.6 fWAR and Nomar had 6.3 for good measure. Pedro's 11.6 fWAR was more than the next 9 pitchers on that staff combined.

I like the video replay. Though MLB will adopt automated balls and strikes NLT 2024, so I don't worry too much on THAT. I am incredibly intrigued by the Power Play rule in ODI - where basically the fielders have to play "in" for the first and last bit of the match. I don't believe in outlawing shifts the whole game for sure.

This is sorta true. The legacy match for cricket is the 5-day Test Match BUT the official World Cup are a series of one-day matches ... each match takes 6 hours And the top professional league in the world (the India Premier League) is a T20 league ... 20 overs (120 balls) per side. That fit within the 3 hour TV window. Cricket is actively trying to catch on in that way. There is a certain purist joy in the 5-day match, but the sports knows the T20 matches are the ones which are going to sell.

For now, I'd probably go production overall as a Red Sox - this is backwards looking after all. And his extremely central role in the 2013 title counts. (not that Sale is bad, but postseasonwise the resumes differ)

You'd see national broadcasts without announcers who keep complaining that the game has not been the same since the Reserve Clause was outlawed. Let's put it this way - FOX put a ton of energy and ad hype into the Fields of Corn game. And people watched! And it was cool for what it was! But they don't put that effort into celebrating today's game and players - not at all.

Length of service has to matter in terms of "best Sox" - though Sale is absolutely a better pitcher. For that matter, in 2007 so was Josh Beckett.

It's popular regionally - sadly in its way like baseball in that way. Baseball's biggest problems on the field I think is: 1. Not blaming analytics PER SE, but the results (mathematically correct) leading to a game where fewer balls are put in play than ever before. 2. Pace of play-ish, but the real answer is to shorten ad breaks and that's not happening. Otherwise, the biggest problem is that the game is presently being run and marketed by people who don't like baseball and baseball players.

I've been a Sox fan since 1986 ... pretty clearly Roger and Pedro are the two best pitchers the franchise has had in that interim. For 3rd place ... it's gotta be Lester, right? Beckett had that one marvelous season, but that was about it.

Operating costs determine minimums for sure - but given that owners are just going to charge what the fans will pay, full stop. And - all of these teams are swimming in cash anyway. The "operating cost" side of it is largely a non-issue. Like, the Pirates can afford their payroll without selling a ticket. (between competitive balance payments and share of the national media deals)

There is a ton of money going into the machine. Right now, the players get all the downsides of the salary cap without any of the benefits other sports have - a guaranteed slice of the pie. But yes, the changes the players should be seeking are at the bottom of the pay scale. You hint at some of the good ones. - Raise the minimum salary to at least $1M a year. You raise the minimum then the other pre-FA salaries will react accordingly. - Any player who spends a day on a major league roster (ahead of the Sep 1 roster expansion) receives 1 months salary. - Change service time to a season or month formula so teams are not manipulating service time by days. - Universal DH. It's more jobs! The owners want a 16 team playoff - so there is some trade space here.

Probably Bradley. 2013 Ellsbury was outstanding - the metrics were certainly competitive with peak JBJ seasons - but the man was never healthy. And Damon probably deserves to be celebrated more defensively than I did in my original rumination, considering he basically had to play the entire outfield by himself given that he had Kevin Millar and Manny being Manny on either side of him.

At $150-200, I'd doubt it myself. That said, a deal could still get him into FA at a younger age than Baez is - so who knows?

They really want to do that joint custody thing with Montreal!

Damon was a meh CF defensively - clear he was about the bat. Ellsbury became a very good CF - but his injuries meant he had basically two all-world level seasons, and the Red Sox got his last one. Crisp was a good CF when they had him, probably the best rangewise of the lot. Bradley's arm plus his smarts made him fantastic. Just became hard to keep due to his spectacular volatility on the offensive side. That said, in my lifetime (I started in 1985 or so), I'd probably put the 2013 version of Ellsbury at #1 as a total package on both sides of the ball.

Interesting if Franco takes it - it's an obvious move for Tampa but that's probably shortchanging him given what he'd likely clear in arbitration .

Right - the QO was a no brainer. I think the Red Sox would have been very happy with Rodriguez coming back for 1/18.6M. I think the 4th year is where the deal started to get too rich and the 5th year was just the cherry on the sundae. Good on Rodriguez though - I think that deal is perfectly reasonable for both sides. I was a little curious whether Rodriguez would bet on himself or not - but given his health issues, 5 years of life changing money is really enticing.

Yes - though that is not a reason not to sign them necessarily ... depends on what the "non prime" looks like. That is one place where signing Carlos Correa for 10 years has a strong business case. The bat will still play if he has to move off of shortstop. Someone like Baez is certainly riskier.

I think due to the CBA uncertainty they are a little bit in flux with some of these questions. That said, for this franchise and market - it's realistic to expect that where they are in a given "window" cycle rotates between ... "could make the playoffs with a break or two" and "I think we can win the whole damn thing" ... at least as April ex ante outlooks. It will be interesting to see what players look for in the CBA negotiation ... if they are smart, they should be focusing on drastically increasing minimum salaries and closing loopholes about monkeying with the end of the roster. I'd be surprised if there was a salary cap but something will happen that forces owners to spend more money on players.

In general the odds of any big move is low to begin with. That said the 2021 outfit was a good team (probably a little better than management expected) and I expect management to field a team that they expect to be good in 2022.

Also, just from a "front facing" business perspective, I have serious doubts the Red Sox want to not be in the "star" game AT ALL. While I am not sure where Heyman's sourcing came from on Baez, that was a name that makes sense. - The team has an immediate and near term need for a middle infielder. Regardless of what happens with Bogaerts in the future, there is place for both he and Baez to play in the middle. - Baez is young enough to be buying mostly prime years, and young enough to project a little improvement. (not Pablo Sandoval was also 29 with a similar argument so there is risk of course, though betting on Baez' body is better) - Yes, the team's top prospect is a middle infielder ... but he turns 19 in December. If and when he is ready for the show, you figure it out then. Moreover - I can see management being reticent to spend when the team does not justify the investment. But the Red Sox are good - and the players' performance (and Cora's of course) I think warrant management making an impact signing. While I don't think the team wants to make a habit of signing 32 year olds to big expensive deals, signing a 27-29 year old is a different calculus.