sk7326

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.

Sale has been the best pitcher in the AL by a mile when he has pitched. The WAR numbers CLEARLY show that. However, there is significant value in bulk which WAR does some disservice to - it's an inning a middle reliever doesn't pitch - which Sale is now way behind in. Verlander is my pick. Sale winning would be awesome, and there is a solid case for him. But Verlander's IP puts him over the top for me.

Some UFAs who make sense for what the Red Sox need include: Josh Harrison Ian Kinsler Daniel Murphy If the market gets down to 1 or 2 years, Brian Dozier is interesting (I expect he will be too rich) If you wanted to be creative Jose Iglesias and see if Bogaerts can play 2B ... (again this is more spitballing than anything realistic) Kinsler is the safest idea and probably my first wish. Harrison is not really an improvement over Holt or Nunez.

There won't be a Cy winner - Sale simply has not pitched enough.

I too predict a 30 win dropoff in 2021

BABIP is largely random but not 100%. It seems more controllable from the pitching side than the hitting one. At the same time, line drives correlate with hits - which lines up nicely with how we were all coached.

It happened because the industry was dumb about this stuff.

1. Here is the entire list of teams with a ready replacement for a pitcher of Chris Sale's caliber in their farm system: (Crickets, tumbleweed blowing) 2. For the most part the Sox have not been in the draft position to get stud pitchers. At the same time, the org has always preferred the predictability of position talent. Dombrowski though has shown much more willingness to draft pitching. 3. I am not sure about Pomeranz. On one hand, it's easy to see him leaving. On the other, will somebody give him a multi-year deal? If I were Dombrowski, I'd still offer him a 1 year deal. Pomeranz might have to take a "prove it" deal anyway. 4. The team is less strapped than simply in between prospect cycles. Every team faces this - we'll see how it goes. 5. Position wise, this team is as set as ownership wants it to be. There are reasons for the team to potentially quietly explore deals for Bogaerts (though I don't think it will happen, and I'm not sure I would do it in their position) - if you don't intend on re-signing him, this offseason is the sweet spot to get a strong return. At the same time, if ownership wants to keep the young talent together, they can. 6. It's a good time to be a Sox fan. The org has some hard choices, but so does every other one - and for the most part they are good choices to have.

Coming into the season, people really slept on the Red Sox. I mean look at last year. Pedroia and Price had big injury issues. The offense never replaced Ortiz. None of the kids made a leap. 3rd base was a giant vortex of suck for most of the season. There was a strong negative vibe, and it feels like a bad season. They also won 93 games and their 2nd straight AL East. I mean even BEFORE adding JD Martinez, there was a lot of reason to think this team was going to get better without doing much of anything. Of course we DID add Martinez.

I worry because of the HRs. But Porcello has been the team's most consistent source of innings - and that has significant value in itself. His start is going to be very important - to allow Cora to manage the #4 starter aggressively.

I did not love the Kimbrel deal - at the same time a single-A shortstop and a middle class Michael Bourn is something that was going to be hard to feel. Kopech is roughly where Carl Pavano was when he was dealt in 1997. That worked out well.

But did Dombrowski overpay? I mean ex ante he did not get Kimbrel for a steal - and I have a general revulsion to "proven closers" as a species. At the same time, he aimed top shelf - and the prospects he gave up were not actually very likely to play for Boston anyway. Now - nobody is running a charity - but given that Margot was clearly a major league capable player, getting him to a place where he could actually draw a salary above minimum wage is good for everybody. Sale cost a steep-ish price ... the White Sox do that deal every day of the week. But the prospects dealt there had a pretty high degree of variability. (Kopech by being a pitcher, and Moncada by being so raw) Compare that with one of the few true #1 starters alive - it's not really much different than the cost to get Pedro. Here is the thing with long term goals - to a certain degree they addressed that by that bonanza of talent the previous regime got into the system and graduated. I mean, they've made 3 straight postseasons with nothing really stopping them from making another 1 or 2. I mean - the Red Sox HAVE thought about long term, and now are the beneficiaries of that - and unlike Tampa, they can extend the party for quite some time. The one thing Dombrowski has done is be proactive on the calls with the kids. "This guy is a stud", "This guy is alright, but we won't miss him" etc ... and then make choices on that. The TL;DR version - I'm not sure how much the guys dealt really lowered the long term prognosis of the major league team.

That has been somewhat by choice. Position talent is less variable than pitching - and the Red Sox have leaned in that direction.

Clutch may or may not exist ... but all of the ways folks have tried to measure it - RISP, Close and Late, have revealed nothing.

I promise to be more literal from now on. The hard thing is a team like the Twins taking inventory and asking how real last year was ... and misdiagnosing themselves.

No. I said the farm exists to service the major league club. And that means both aims - they are not mutually exclusive. Given where the Cubs were - the value of Gleyber Torres as a trade chip was more important than his value as a future cog. If they were where the Padres were, that would of course have been madness. And good teams (and in particular good teams with lots of revenue) have different decision sets than others. Trading every prospect nailed down doesn't make sense - as you have rightly noted. But neither does hoarding them! For a contender, there are too many stakeholders - including the blocked prospect themselves - not to make a deal in that context.

Nothing you have said counters that.

Benintendi, Betts and Devers were identified as franchise caliber talent - and there were job openings - so there you go. Margot (for instance) was blocked and lacked the upside - so he became trade fodder. And remember, considering how crappy the life of a minor leaguer is (scandalously low pay in particular), this is for the best. Dombrowski has done a great job here - been very aggressive with the guys he believes in and have moved other guys. One of the big failings of the past administration was not necessarily making those decisions so the organization had some direction. As I've noted before - while every team wants to be a scouting and development machine (and I desire that for the Red Sox of course), we are not the Oakland A's, and the franchise should not act like they are (and fortunately they are not), and the fans pay way too much money for that sort of rationalization. (whether that be rationalizing not signing a premium asset, or mainpulating service time with a guy who obviously should be here) Now, the Red Sox have largely done the right thing organizationally and have benefitted from a rather amazing set of prospect graduations. The challenge is replacing them, but that would have been true no matter who the GM was.

The teams where those sorts of trades would have been relevant were bad ... when Betts made his monumental leap, the Red Sox were a bad team. Benintendi was available specifically because the Red Sox were bad. The team was not a small number of moves away, so it's a moot discussion. The Red Sox traded talent for Kimbrel but it was blocked talent. I am certainly not advocating for trading your future superstar tier of player for instant gratification. But the Cubs were filled to the rim with good talent, the players they dealt were blocked (you can argue choosing Addison Russell over Torres was a mistake, but they were right for making a choice). Nobody benefits (including the players themselves!) from the status quo there.