sk7326

i look at it realistically - teams self scout all the time. large market teams are prone to hold on to their stars and look at everybody else a bit more flexibly. the red sox have traded a lot of kids, but have aimed high when doing so. i justify the deal on two fronts - they traded guys they did not identify as their star tier, and they traded them for uncontroversially high quality pieces. The Pomeranz deal was a notable exception, though that goes with the high variability that comes with low minor pitching.

possibly. young players get better all the time. these are hard decisions - but someone has to make them.

that ain't happening.

Benintendi was Golden Spikes winner who had made a monumental leap in college in 2015, and then just obliterated low-A in his cup of coffee there. Management knew what they had - and traded Margot without qualms.

Right their ages and such - at least as a metric - don't say much about their outlooks. They are on a fairly normal path. Now for Dalbec, there is clearly more of a project vibe. You usually don't expect a college kid to be at Gulf Coast and Greenville - that is a bit slow. That said, he ripped through Salem and has held his own in Portland aside from striking out a ton.

Here is the thing - "we don't know the future" describes every trade, signing, hell every second of day to day life. But you have your best guess based on the information you have - whether it be your scouting, or general suspicions about pitcher outcomes. Espinoza has missed almost 2 full seasons, Kopech is going to miss 2019, Margot is 24 - but he was blocked in Boston. So he goes somewhere where there was a job opening.

But did he? I mean - he traded a bunch of prospects ... but how many were future starters? He promoted the hell out of the guys he identified as stars. Most of the Red Sox premium quality are on the major league roster. The ebb and flow of a farm system is inevitable. The Cubs are facing the same thing. You do your best to try to replace them, but a constant supply of Top 100 prospects is both incredibly unlikely - but in some senses kind of inefficient.

Owners of professional sports team buy them not just as businesses, but the way someone buys a piece of art or a rare album. It's a toy and marker of being megarich. And the rules in each sport make it nearly impossible to lose money.

He will do what ownership wants ... he built systems in Montreal and Miami. Huizenga burned to the ground - and then the players Dombrowski brought into the system won another World Series. Detroit he was doing was Ilitch wanted. If Henry wants this to be more sustainable, it will happen. Dombrowski has done it both ways.

You are off by a level or two here.

It IS very close - I agree there (and I should have put more people on the list now that I am looking at bWAR and diving a bit) A pretend ballot since we're here Cy Young 1. Verlander - Numbers with Kluber are close, but Verlander was much better against the other playoff contenders (5-2, 3.07 ERA vs 4-3, 3.84 ERA) 2. Sale - He's been pitch to pitch the best guy in the league 3. Snell - Snell is really close. But hey, I'm a Sox fan! Rookie 1. Torres - Given a close race, I am inclined to go with younger players. And Torres has been at times spectacular 2. Ohtani - The pitching was disappointing, but the hitting was a genuine surprise. 3. Wendle - Has let the rookies in bWAR, but I do value age and style a bit here - and Wendle is just a bit short on those areas. Manager 1. Alex Cora 2. Kevin Cash 3. Bob Melvin Who the hell knows what "best manager" is. And also, with the job really transcending a year's performance (a manager establishes culture which pays off over a longer period of time). These three stand out - though Francona, Hinch are perfectly good choices too. MVP (I think the writers do ten choices, but I'll do 5) 1. Betts (easy, the best player on the best team, narrative and numbers align nicely) 2. Trout (he is the utility - could have won 6 MVPs in a row) 3. Ramirez (given folks who are close in WAR, I tend to lean towards WAR built more from offense, due to it just being easier to measure) 4. Chapman (he has had the best defensive season in the league and clearly the hitting has been there too) 5. Martinez (I am not sure of the intangible effects, but I am not saying that is zero ... but he has a 6 win season entirely on offense, and his contribution has coincided with Boston's greatest need) Bregman, Lindor are tough omissions

The Red Sox example here is Yoan Moncada.

I tend to be positive about athletes who get better at stuff as they get exposure ... so Dalbec gives some optimism, albeit cautious

I think the question is what does cliff mean - and I think that's where my head is at. If we are thinking CLIFF as in turning into the 2018 Kansas City Royals - that ain't happening, and the franchise won't let that happen. (it might, but they will go into the season trying to avoid that) If we think of it as the Yankees CLIFF, where things bottomed out at 84 wins, and you at least had 3-4 months of a credible playoff chase - THAT is what I'd expect as a worst case.

It really comes down - does missing a month of the season matter? I think yes. This is really turning up like the Sabathia-Beckett race in 2007, where that giant innings gap became decisive.

*NARRATOR* He was already

median is a reasonable definition of average ... now if you prefer mean to median in this context is up to you.

It should be in the mix - he has been amazing. But right now he is 30+ innings behind the other starters. So some of the inherent value of a #1 starter (allow the manager to not have to burn bullpen staff once every five games) has not been there. Every inning Sale pitches is an inning an inferior player doesn't.

2 yrs/40-45m ... the yearly salary interests me less than the years. It's the years that is always the limiting factor.

40-50% of at least one of them. Chavis and Dalbec have plus (or close to plus) in SOME areas. And Dalbec seems to be a good athlete.

if you committed to it and he had an offseason, I could see it. Never doubt good athletes, especially those with some infield background already. It would not be my first choice.

I think that is fair to a point. But again, each inning a good starter pitches is an inning an inferior pitcher is not - and this is especially acute when a starter keeps turning the game over in the 5th or 6th inning. I know the game is more bullpen-centric than ever, but it means having a real workhorse more valuable (at least in the regular season). WAR does a good job with combining quality and quantity - but I think the quantity has some value outside of what WAR captures. And 40 innings is a lot.

This is right - the budget can always increase ... and the team's revenue and profitability has never been an issue. When you are a legacy franchise, a landmark ballpark you own, a crappy cable channel you mostly own - really not keeping a guy comes down to it being a bad baseball move, or Henry wanting another plane.

Dalbec has an 80 arm and (from reports) has shown he can really pick it at 3B. The rub is there is not a great history of success for dudes who swing and miss as much as he does against non-big leaguers. Dalbec has made progress, but there is a lot of variability there. Can he make enough contact at the big league level to get on base enough to let the defense and power play. (like Josh Reddick's travails in his pre-Oakland career) Ockimey is higher floor lower ceiling. And his value has to be in his bat - because it's not going to be anywhere else.

Players of his age and ability just don't get to unrestricted free agency. He will have a strong market. I've noted somewhere else - I would not be surprised if Dombrowski ... not SHOP, but let the world know that he won't hang up if they want to talk X. If the Red Sox are not sure they want to resign Bogaerts and want to get something more than a sandwich pick - this offseason is the sweet spot to deal him to get maximum return. I'm not predicting it. I'm not recommending it. But it makes sense given the facts on the ground.