sk7326

1. 100%. Having pitchers hit is a waste of time. Pitching is a full time job and the guys just don't PRACTICE hitting at any level. 2. I don't love the clock - hurrying pitchers is a potential path to injury. Besides the reason games are slow are TV commercials, and MLB ain't getting rid of those. Now, I think the league should look more into "scorebug adverstising" or other means to eliminate the commercial breaks between pitching changes. 3. The extra inning thing is so silly. I do get the concern for wanting the regular season games to end in a shorter manner. But the only way to do really do that is have ties. 4. 100% 5. Baseball has the minor league calendar exactly backwards. It makes much more sense to have expanded rosters in April than in September. And yes, the team should have to freeze an active 26 man roster every game. No more blackouts for sure. I'd also go to 32 teams and 4 divisions and get rid of the vast majority of interleague games.

Great, less DH usage? Barf!!!!!

It seems more likely that Downs ends up being above average to pretty good (with pretty good probability) than, say, one of the three or four best players on Earth.

Yeah, the Dodgers are obviously the platonic ideal of where a franchise like Boston wants to be, in particular not having the ownership plan whiplash that Henry has shown. Sample sizes are tiny so far - though 159-3 is not a bad season - but the 2013 vibes are fun to have while it lasts.

Law system rankings ... https://theathletic.com/1641139/2020/03/02/keith-laws-farm-system-rankings-for-all-30-mlb-teams/ 1. Tampa Bay Rays 2. Braves 3. Dodgers 4. Diamondbacks 6. Yankees 25. Boston Red Sox 27. Houston Astros 29. Washington Nationals 30. Milwaukee Brewers

Downs would have had more impact on it than Wong - Downs seems to have a pretty solid MLB level floor. I could see a significant variation on the Red Sox system too - a lot of the interesting prospects are further away from the bigs, and while Dombrowski and company did a good job putting a lot of interesting arms in the organization - most of the arms come with some significant reliever risk. Like Bryan Mata is the 3rd best prospect in the Sox org if you really think he can be a starter. But if you are bearish on that, it's going to knock him down a few pegs. Dalbec is a swing prospect too - he worked his butt off last year on making more contact. He's never going to be 2008 Dustin Pedroia or anything, but he has to be able to make enough contact to get to his ridiculous power. Combine that with the pretty good odds of him staying at 3B, and there is something there. Of course he is running out of time as a "young" player ...

Law tends to ding a lot if he doesn't see starting pitcher upside. If Mata's arm slot is creating a Justin Masterson like split problem, then he can only be a reliever, though possibly a good one. His intro/overall impression of SOX system Given the handicap of draft position, Dombrowski's team actually did a good job there.

The org report https://theathletic.com/1609934/2020/02/26/keith-laws-guide-to-top-red-sox-prospects/ 1. Jeter Downs, IF (#70 overall) 2. Triston Casas, 1B (#90 overall) 3. Noah Song, RHP (just missed top 100) 4. Jason Groome, LHP 5. Jarren Duran, OF 6. Thad Ward, RHP 7. Bobby Dalbec, 3B 8. Gilberto Jimenez, OF 9. Bryan Mata, RHP 10. Tanner Houck, RHP 11. Matthew Lugo, SS 12. Chris Murphy, LHP 13. CJ Chatham, SS 14. Cam Cannon, 2B 15. Andrew Politi, RHP 16. Ryan Zeferjahn, RHP 17. Nick Decker, OF 18. Chih-Jung Liu, RHP 19. Conor Wong, C/IF 20. Brayan Bello, RHP Other notables Sleeper

Keith Law's Top 100 ... https://theathletic.com/1627163/2020/02/24/keith-laws-top-100-prospects-for-2020/ From the just missed group:

It's not couldn't ... it's WOULDN'T - the industry is drowning in money. Remember the teams you weep for are getting over $50M before a ticket is sold. The problem is that the current system does not incentivize/require spending money on players.

Bloom had an impossible job and made a fairly defensible baseball trade out of a terrible situation. I am optimistic he will do good work unless the owner changes his mind again (which given the past is entirely possible).

Ultimately is has to do with ownership's MO - and ownership has not shown much appetite for "sticking things out".

The reason teams have farm systems at all is to find someone like Mookie Betts.

Yes - the NBA which has a cap and tax faces the same deal, but the players locked in a guaranteed slice of the pie ... the baseball players screwed the pooch there. I fully expect a salary cap (probably a soft one) to come into place with the next CBA - though I also expect a work stoppage.

I am empathetic with a lot of your posts on this issue. But this is just silly. It's not your money. There is no civic obligation for the Red Sox to not invest in the major league team - if anything, the obligation is the reverse. Caveat: If we find out (not from the Globe) that Mookie would have rather sat through one a timeshare pitch than play for the Red Sox ever again, and made that clear - the calculus here changes quite a bit.

Problem solved then!

The premise in that comment is that the budget comes down in tablets from Mount Sinai instead of a decision the Fenway Sports Group makes. And it is perfectly okay to question that premise. I mean I certainly do. I mean, the Red Sox made what is probably a fair-ish baseball deal considering the variables. But they also punted on 4-6 prime years of someone on a HoF trajectory, and the current return is highly unlikely to produce a single All Star appearance, all while being one of the prime earners in an industry drowning in cash. That's just the reality. (note: the new version of the trade increases the probability of very positive outcomes of course, but it's still the usual math associated with young'ins) The Sox are not unique here of course. The Dodgers are trying to reset too, and we know that the Yankees in recent years have spent a relative pittance of their revenue on the major league roster (and it's still a high payroll team). It will be a fun wrestling issue for the next CBA - the players right now get all of the downsides of a salary cap without the upsides the players in say the NBA get.

Here is the thing - the defensive value he offers (that he can catch a little and play the other positions decently) only really matters if the hit tool is there. For Swihart, that never materialized. Also I think the team never had a very stable action plan - do you convert him, or do you let him play through the rough patches. At the same time, Swihart didn't hit - and it's the ability to hit that would have really forced the Red Sox one way or another.

Prospects don't always work out - Swihart was a good prospect. Oh well.

Now, this does not mean I like the trade per se. It's the Red Sox, and it's Mookie effin Betts. A lot of folks on forums like this talk about the either:or nature of Henry's spending decisions (as he has outlined them) without questioning the premise sufficiently. But that is the nature of sportsball fandom and sports talk radio, so it's not surprising. That said - the first version of this trade was a disgrace, this version of the trade is a disgrace with an asterisk. Given the priorities of ownership, the baseball trade is fine. Let's hope it works out.

She confirmed independent reporting of their relationship. Given the nature of these things, and how badly women who report are treated, it seems to fair to take her at her word here.

Right - the Sox got hosed the first time. This deal is better, in that the Red Sox got some real ceiling which did not exist in the first version of this trade. Considering the discount you expect from dumping Price's deal - this deal is at least commesurate with a move being done for baseball reasons.

I did too - but the money saved ought to go into closing the gap (at least at the major league level).

This is a better baseball deal - and probably closer to what a year of Betts + Price's contract is worth. Get a starting RF, a guy who moves up to the top of Boston's org list (an actual Top 100 prospect) and a catcher-sort who does not look like a throe in. For whatever reason, whether it be medical or ownership getting reactive to initial reactions - the deal is at least some actual baseball value now.

I'm not at all. Henry mandated saving money - and so he mandated moving an elite player (the sort who basically never gets dealt) for that purpose. The beginning of the Russillo Pod here puts it well: https://www.theringer.com/2020/2/5/21125232/charissa-thompson-plus-mookie-betts-and-nba-trade-deadline-moves