sk7326

First, all of them are failed starters. This usually implies a couple of things: 1. Not great control 2. Only two above average pitches 3. Really violent deliveries The sample sizes for evaluating relievers is tiny. I mean a couple of bad appearances blows up most of your stats for the season. It's hard to find a lot of year to year consistency. I mean Ryan Brasier was just some random name the Sox found and he has been terrific. But he could very easily stop. Okajima was unhittable for a season and then stopped. Keith Foulke was heroic and then his arm fell off. There are a few good ones, but for the most part it's all context dependent.

That is because of the nature of the position. Just a ton of volatility. It's just easier to throw stuff at the wall until 7 or 8 semi-reliable guys stick. Relievers are getting paid, but one inning relievers are hard to justify.

Tampa did the most to try to improve. Honestly, the likelihood of Boston crushing the division was low just by virtue of dumb luck. This start was worse than I hoped for - but there is no reason to think this team (assuming relatively good health) can't be in the playoff mix.

Chavis is their best prospect by far in the high minors - though Lakins and Feltman (and we've seen Lakins already) could provide some legit 2019 value. The question ultimately is whether Chavis can play 2B adequately enough - his bat clearly can play anywhere.

After a horrific 2 weeks, the Red Sox lead the league in starters' ERA. Now it would be wrong to just pretend the first two weeks didn't happen - but there is more reason to be bullish than not.

This isn't really true. It's 3 outs with the bases empty. There are trickier positions. Fortunately the Red Sox have a few decent options and have deployed them okay.

I don't think they will carry that payroll for an 83 win team. But for a historically great team in a business swimming in cash? I don't know. Winning baseball is good and entertaining. I mean, the Sox did not go after Machado or Harper, because their internal options were just fine. So there are business cases for any move.

I think the Red Sox had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history with a roster full of extremely auspiciously aged stars, and Henry is committed to maximizing the potential of that situation. He has shown no indication otherwise - as I've noted above dealing Bogaerts this offseason would have made a ton of sense if he did.

You are operating under assumptions and constraints which make sense ... but (based on their moves) might not align with the Red Sox front office and ownership.

I don't know what they will do - but they seem to be considering it. This is good for me - I am all for teams trying to win - that clearly is an endangered species in the industry.

"when that window closes" could be highly dependent on their own extend/no extend decisions. But the org is acting like a team that is trying to maximize the window's length. Dombrowski is not doing things somebody expecting the window to close anytime soon would do. It is interesting.

A lot will depend on this season. If Bogaerts matches or exceeds his 2018 output, allaying fears of a fluke, then a 6/130 type of deal is very plausible. Now - that Dombrowski did not trade Bogaerts this offseason seems to indicate the Red Sox are bullish on 2018 not being a fluke.

It would seem that way - but they passed on chances to trade some of the guys they have to make decisions on. There was a really strong case to deal Bogaerts - but the team didn't. They clearly are expecting to at least try to keep him. This is not something a team hellbent on resetting would do.

I am curious where Henry's head's at - because Dombrowski is surely not ACTING like someone who is going to dump their core guys. They are trying to extend Sale. They sat out the prime window to deal Bogaerts. They sat out the prime window to deal Bradley.

I am absolutely certain this team will not just reset for resetting sakes. There will be churn - but opportunities are special. Henry clearly understands this better than a lot of owners.

He was 25 when he entered it - he was a really great player before his deal started too. There is no real way to measure the impact PEDs may or may not have had on his performance. Showering 32 year Pujols with a massive deal was suicidal ... getting a guy in his prime is different. Machado fits virtually every team's timeline.

Yeah - faced without a guy like Machado becoming truly available, the Padres were probably 2 years away from their internal talent justifying a hired gun. But a guy like Machado WAS avaliable, so why not? Getting a 26 year old at/near his prime fits virtually every time table there is.

The Padres had a giant steaming turd at 3B - with a high caliber prospect maybe 2 years away. They have a lot of young talent ready to arrive in the next year or two. Guys like Machado just don't become available all the time. The industry is swimming in cash. Machado absolutely fits their timetable of contention. This contract has risk (like all contracts do), but the real comp for this sort of contract is ARod's texas deal - and that worked out just fine. Now they need starting pitching, but have the prospect depth to do something about it. Meanwhile they have an actual star to provide some stability while their guys who could very well be stars get their feet wet. This makes sense for everybody.

Maybe - I think they might have had the terms semi agreed to. Eovaldi at that price is not a steal - but fair and betting on some achievable upside.

I am sure there were. But the Red Sox could win any bidding war, and they had a job opening. If another team offered $28M the Sox probably don't get him - but it is safe to infer that the offers were all relatively close. JD was always the type of guy (30 year old unathletic DH type) who could age quickly. He made tons of sense for Boston since the marginal value he could produce was so critical to them. (basically being one dimensional is not a problem when it is the one dimension separating you from a 108 win season) He might not live up to 2018 - but who cares. He has paid the deal off already.

Who determines merit - and why would it be static? I mean player measurement has evolved greatly, and with all the Statcast API stuff will evolve even more. Why should GMs bear no risk here?

Basicaly this is a technocratic version of the reserve clause - or it could work out that way.

Figure it out then - you have a chance to win now, go for it. Flags fly forever, and you can never guarantee future chances. I mean, for all the sniffing at Dombrowski's trades and so forth - all you got was a title and 3 playoff berths.

The short contracts are stupid - protecting GMs and owners from themselves. The NBA has a problem with that where it means teams are turning rosters over constantly and it is hard to keep players period. Now you describe the Yankees to a T - they want to keep the YES money. Good on them. I am glad you are on board with that. There is no real problem with MLB contracts. The horrible ones were known to be problematic at the time - I mean the deal to Pujols was walking into a bear trap. The basic problem is the players union got much dumber after Fehr left and got no guaranteed piece of the pie when the owners were stepping into a massive amount of cash. So this serves them right to a certain degree. The best way to get guys in their prime money is to get rid of salary arbitration in favor of a year of restricted free agency and let em go. Now if that is tied to a salary cap - fine, but I don't think the teams who own their own networks want to share to that degree. Besides, the Marlins are getting nearly $100M before selling a single ticket, so I can see that. Where the league is saving money is on players under arbitration, low entry level salaries and paying minor leaguers below minimum wage. So improve all of those (even though minor leaguers are not union members) and get players into free agency earlier, and the other stuff solves itself. What we have right now is a system where a lot of teams are not trying to win ultimately, which is not good for the fans. This is one of the cases where the players goals align with the fans pretty well.

Awful is relative. After all if the entire player cohort is undervalued - the awful contracts aren't actually as awful as they seem. Putting that aside there is a case for almost every team to sign a 26 year old All Star.