Maxbialystock

Careful with the "they." DD was the one willing to pay Eovaldi and Price and so convinced Henry they were essential for the "rebuild" or whatever he called it. DD has been summarily fired, so I think your use of "they" is in fact incorrect. Dumping DD and signing the Rays' GM is a pretty strong signal that exorbitant salaries are no longer de riguer. And let's not forget how quickly Mookie made it to the big club. After the 2013 season when the Yankees "stole" Jacoby Ellsbury for $145M for 7 years. They were no doubt hoping Jacoby could replicate his "annus mirabilis" (2011) with that short porch in Yankees Stadium right field. Many Sox fans thought Ellsbury was also irreplaceable. However, the Sox already had one obvious CF, JBJ, and one possible, Mookie, both of whom arrived for good in 2014. Ellbury proved to be dead weight for the Yankees and one of many reasons why they now take a different approach. Oh, and how do we know that Mookie's annus mirabilis (2018) wasn't the result of being told what pitch is coming? Anyone? Anyone? Plus Mookie is just one guy in a lineup of 9, and even that even doesn't include the fact that pitching is so very important--last year there were times when the Sox carried 13 pitchers and 12 position players on their active roster. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement" and is more and more used as a player's yardstick. In 2018 Mookie's was was an MVP's 10.9. Last year it dropped down buy 4 to 6.8. If we assume WAR means what he says, that drop should have cost the Sox 4 games, but in fact they went from winning 108 games in 2018 to winning 84 games last year. One player does not a lineup or a team make. This reminds of the very recent episode of Bryce Harper, who also demanded much more than a king's ransom from the Nationals--and got it from the Phillies. In 2018, the year before Bryce joined them, the Phillies went 80-82. In 2019, with Harper supposedly giving his all, the Phillies went 81-81. And the poor Nationals, who no longer had the estimable services of their super-great (according to his salary) RF? They won it all. However, I checked the Phillies attendance for those two years and confirmed that attendance jumped almost 600,000 from 2018 to 2019--almost certainly because of the acquisition of Bryce Harper. Such a jump--or decrease--in attendance is unlikely for the Sox because of the size of Fenway combined with their overall success in the John Henry era. $300M for 10 years is more than abundant recompense unless you or your agent thinks it's "all about how Mookie is valued in this firm."

Exactly.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

I didn't think he would opt out, but I also don't mind that he's staying. If Mookie leaves, I don't see JDM moving to RF, but do think the Sox will need his bat.

Nothing wrong with being a cheerleader, of course, but in the marketplace of ideas and insights, reading a pessimist now and then can be worthwhile, especially if they have good sources.

Do you mean $50-60M per year? How do you figure that? I ask because the attendance this year, when the Sox did poorly and Mookie wasn't nearly as good as last year, was slightly higher than the attendance last year when Mookie was MVP and the Sox won everything. I would argue that Sox attendance is only mildly affected by individual performance or even overall team performance. I do not know about TV ratings, however. Remember Albert Pujols in his heyday with the Cardinals? He's long gone and their attendance is still 2d highest in MLB.

My thought is that a real sell off is hard to pull off right now because nobody wants the really pricey guys like Price and Sale. However, Mookie is likely to leave because his salary demands in 2020--let alone his long term contract--will be out of this world. JDM is sticking around at $22M/year, which I think is OK. Ditto Bogie at $20M/year. Eovaldi at $17M/yr is a problem because he is seems very injury prone. His most IP are 199 in 2014, then 154 in 2015, then 124 in 2016, and nothing higher since then. So who would want him? I don't really care which way the Sox go on JBJ. Either way, the Sox will do way better than the Yankees did when they "stole" Ellsbury for I think 7 years and $153M.

I don't know a lot about salaries (and am unqualified to be a budgie), but right now I'm thinking almost no player (Trout an obvious exception) can justify a salary of more than $25M/year in terms of value to the team. The current system, which keeps salaries artificially low for the first several years, still allows exceptional players to do well. Mookie Betts has now been paid $32.5M for his first six years, and average of $5M/year. Even in his tax bracket, he should already have a pretty nice nest egg. Next year, still under the Sox control, he will likely be paid $25M or more via arbitration. Meanwhile, Scott Boras now has most baseball columnists and commentators pretty much agreeing with him that almost no salary is too high for a really good player. Thus the Phillies acquisition of Bryce Harper who improved their W-L record (2018 vs. 2019) by 1 game. Meanwhile, the losing team, the Nats, won the WS without Harper. This makes no difference because "great players" are still worthy whatever they ask for (thru Boras of course). Also meanwhile, the Rays salaries this year were 1/3 ($69M vs. $213M) of the Sox while the Rays finished 12 games ahead of the Sox in the AL East. All of the above are why I am unqualified to be a budgie.

Yes, admittedly. The thinking part is that it was a pretty terrific WS which was good for MLB. I live on the outskirts of DC (Fairfax County) and am bombarded with inane comments about how these poor fans have suffered for almost a millenium--in their case, 14 years--before finally, finally winning the big one. The real suffering fans were those of the Washington Senators who were so bad and so unsupported they lost two franchises, one of which is still in Minnesota and the other still in Texas. But the Senators did have one great asset--sportswriter Shirley Povich.

I'm inclined to think that JDM staying works well for both sides and that keeping Mookie at his projected salary works far better for Mookie than for the Sox. One example to make my point--Bryce Harper. The Nationals were wise not to offer him what he could get elsewhere (thanks to his rapacious agent) because, lo and behold, in their first season without him their win percentage went up and they managed a very gritty postseason that took them all the way. The team that got Wonder Boy finished one game better, 81-81 vs. 80-82, with Bryce than than the year before without him. Here's another. The Sox won 108 games and the WS in 2018 and with basically the same team barely cleared .500 in 2019. Why? Because the pitching collapsed in 2019 even while the hitting was still pretty good. Why spend a king's ransom on a rightfielder when, no matter who great his season, he is still a small part of the whole. Half of a team's active roster is 12 pitchers--and in 2019 for most of the season Cora went with 13 pitchers. Here's another. JDM made a huge difference in the offense last year, 2018, when they won it all. It was like the return of Big Papi because his solid hitting seemed to make everyone else better. Mookie deserved the MVP award, but to me JDM was the catalyst of that MLB-leading offense in 2018. I also happen to think Mike Trout is overpaid, but at least in his case he delivers every year for several years running plus there is no way he is not the fan favorite for the Angels--he puts butts in seats. I'm not sure Mookie does that for the Sox. Finally, an admission. I am unalterably opposed to the gargantuan salaries now consistently praised by the vast majority of sportswriters. I think $25M/year is just about optimal for both sides, player and team). I do think Curt Flood breaking the reserve clause was good for baseball (and long overdue after the Black Sox scandal, which was caused mainly by the penuriousness of the owner Wrigley). Let's not forget that, thanks to the MLBPA, almost everything in today's contracts is guaranteed even though owners continue to ignore the dictum, caveat emptor. I cite $25M becauseI recently read that Strasburg, who had such a great 2019 and especially the postseason, is trying the free agent market at age 31 because his rapacious agent has convinced him that $25M is simply inadequate and "not what he is worth." Baloney.

The Nats did two unusual things to win: they won four road games and lost all three home games in the WS; they won the WS despite having to win the wild card game first. I might add that they beat two pretty good teams--the Dodgers in the NLDS and the Astros in the WS--and they did so by winning the final two games of both series. They were down 2-1 to the Dodgers in a 5 game series, and 3-2 to the Astros in a 7 game series. The more I think about it, the more I think the whining about the umpires and/or the decisions by the Nationals manager are a poor attempt to mask the central reality of the World Series (and the playoffs for that matter).

I guess it's OK second-guessing Greinke's removal, but on the other hand subsequent events showed the Astros bullpen stunk last night when they had a reputation for being very good. The much-maligned Nationals bullpen, on the other hand, was terrific for four innings. I also disagree on the whining about the balls and strikes when the most eventful call that some say was wrong was the runner interference call. Despite the usual whining about umpire's imperfections, the simple fact is that the better team, the more deserving team, won. On paper the Astros had the better overall team, but the Nationals had the good pitching (and enough hitting) when they needed it for those 4 wins. This is why the WS MVP is Strasburg. Kind of reminds me of Johnny Podres in the 1955 WS when the Dodgers won their first--and against the darn Yankees. I think Podres won 3 games, 1 in relief.

Obviously, I didn’t read the other moonslav posts.

Heartily disagree even though the playoff teams winning percentages for the regular season suggest that statistically no team should be considered a lock to win three straight series at this level. Even though the Yankees had the best offense, I think the Astros, going in, were the only playoff team with solid pitching and hitting. Even the Astros, however, needed that 5th game to win the ALDS over the Rays, a wild card, just as the Dodgers needed that 5th game to eliminate the Nats, who actually won the 5th game before sweeping the Cards. The Nats have had pretty decent hitting this year, but I think lately their real strength is their starting pitching. Unfortunately, and unlike the Astros, they don't have much of a bullpen. Still, the Nats took the first two from the Astros on the strength of two good starts by Sherzer and Strasburg. And for some reason--here's your random crapshoot coming in to play--the Astros got two lousy starts by the estimable Cole and Verlander. Back to my basic point: going in, it was obvious to me that the best overall team, the strongest, was the Astros, and right now they are in the WS and tied in games 2-2. That, I would argue again vehemently, is not random.

Last night was a throwback to the 1950's musical damn yankees and it's one memorable tune--you gotta have heart. I say this because the long layoff cost Scherzer his command--he finished with under 60% strikes--but took nothing from his grit because he actually pitched 5 innings and 112 pitches, giving up just 2 runs, and left his bullpen a 3 run lead and a 4 inning gap to fill. They ended up giving up the same number of runs, 2,in 1 fewer inning than Scherzer. Then there that was that young phenom, Joe Hardy by name, on the then Washington Senators, who last night was nicely repeated last night by Soto. While this Washington team isn't beating the damn yankees, they so far are beating the team that beat the Yankees--after beating the team, the Dodgers, who were the Yankees arch rivals in the 1950's when damn yankees was written and performed. But my real point is I was wrong in thinking the 7 day layoff would kill the Nats. It definitely affected Scherzer, but not the rest of the team. Is it also worth mentioning in this era of one game wild card playoffs that a wild card is not only in the WS, but has a real shot at winning? This is the team with a heart no less than that of the 2004 Sox.

Two very good teams who in the end played a very good series. I agree with tyderD that last night's winner was likely to win the WS. Thanks largely to a 7-0 margin in game 1, the Yankees were only outscored in the ALCS by 1 run. Yeah, bad play by Judge, but I think pitching to Altuve in the 9th with 2 outs and defensive replacement coming to the plate was the big mistake. I'm not sure the 4-0 sweep in the NLCS is an advantage for the Nationals. Perhaps the opposite. I remember the Rockies in 2007 who swept everyone the got swept by the WS, but I don't remember the AL team who did that.

Good chance now for a game 6. 4 errors yesterday looked awful yesterday, but the central issues were two 3 run dingers by the Astros and their good pitching.

Verlander has no command. Every thing is up in the zone while other Astros pitchers have kept the ball low. I don’t care how good you are, without command you are nothing. I’m rooting for the Astros, but I kind of like seeing this comeuppance.

Disregard. I just found the ALCS thread.

Makes sense to me.

Blogging is as close as I get to OCD, but I too am a long time bridge player and loved all sports until about 40 when it boiled down to PT and golf. I only played one wonderful summer of Babe Ruth league, after which it was basketball, tennis, volleyball, softball, pool, ping pong, racquetball, squash, etc.

Or so the reporting says. I might add that jacksonianmarch ain’t like that. As for the ALCS, it sure looks as though only one team has good hitting and good pitching. I thought Tanaka was brilliant in game 1. Then came sayonara to that. Astros are just all around good.

Given current realities, this is a pretty good thread. While I appreciate the commentary on the Trop--probably the worst park in MLB--I still like the Rays story, but this does not mean I don't respect any and all other favorites. The Rays had the play-in game, but their overall approach to pitching means it probably cost them less than other wild card teams. Whatever the reason, the score in game 1 with the Astros is 0-0 after 3 1/2.

I sort of rooted for the A's because of Moneyball, but am more than fine with the Rays win. Well deserved. I usually tune out if the Sox aren't in the postseason, but not this year. I live in N.Virginia so was happy with the Nationals winning. Yes, the winning run was a fluke, but tying the game off that clean single to RF was not a fluke. With two outs, the runner on 2b went with the crack of the bat and was not going to be thrown out at home. without the error, there would have been runners on 1st and 3d with 2 outs and the Nats would still have had an opportunity to get the go ahead run in the 8th. Also, the Brewers rightfielder was a 22 year old August 1 call up. The Nationals are in the NLDS, but start tonight in Chavez Ravine against a pretty good Dodgers team. Houston won 107 games this year and now play the Rays. The Dodgers won 106. I preferred the old 4 teams format with no play-in game, but this year I think the "new" 5 team playoff format has been fair--and interesting. And I will root for both the Nats and the Rays.

This was a tough season, and I say that with chagrin because the glow of 2018 should still be with us. Instead, it made our expectations higher because basically the same team returned with what is still a very good lineup. This time, however, the pitching never was there, which is demonstrated by the Sox having a losing record at Fenway and a winning record on the road.