Maxbialystock

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.

LeVangie is the first non-pitcher pitching coach for the Sox since 1994 and the personal choice of Alex Cora. I would defend the truncated ST this year were it not for the additional problem of the new "seamless" baseball, which clearly has taken some getting used to and has led to a resurgence of the offense throughout MLB. Earlier this season I tried to argue that ST made no difference, but here in September it is clear that ERod, the one guy who had a "full" 15 innings in ST this year (and had none last year when he was on the IL), is having by far the best season. The one tiny caveat to dumping on LeVangie is that Porcello pitched 12 innings in ST vs. his usual 16, but is in fact having the worst season of his career with his contract up for a renewal. I just find it hard to believe that 4 more innings in ST would have made that much of a difference. In fact, his April ERA was a decent 4.76, and his May ERA was an excellent (for him) 3.34. Then came the bad months of June 6.46 and July 7.94, followed by a decent August 4.00. Eovaldi was on the IL for ST, so that leaves us with exhibits 1 and 2 for the prosecution--Sale and Price. I honestly think those two would be least affected by the "seamless" baseball because neither throws a curve and both rely on fastballs, sliders, and changeups, which this year seem to me to be about the same as in prior years. However, both Sale and Price have had elbow/arm issues this year, which begs the question: is that because of too little ST to prepare for the season or because those issues were inevitable for both of them? In fact, Sale has tailed off badly the past two seasons after having great April/May/Junes. Price is 34 and has thrown 2029 innings.

I hate to say it, but, despite all those walks, this was a pretty good game. Also interesting that the Sox outscored the Twins in the series overall, 13-10, but of course lost in games, 2-1. The Sox now have a losing record at Fenway this year. About those 9 walks by the Sox staff, I think part of that was dinger-avoidance.

I guess my point is that just maybe the smart guy is John Henry himself. Now he is the one who has to decide on whether to stay with DD. I have left out any discussion on the overall profitability of the Sox of the effects of the luxury tax, both of which are key factors.

Interesting, as always, discussion on DD, which to me means upper management and with it John Henry, arguably (with four WS wins) the best owner in MLB today. I find it interesting that JH, while perfectly willing to spend big bucks to bring in high quality player talent, has until DD relied on developing front office talent like Epstein and Cherington--both of whom are currently GM's with the Cubs and Jays respectively. Critics of the movie Moneyball point out that the very successful 2002 Oakland A's relied heavily on young talent developed by the very scouts pilloried in early scenes in the movie. Before DD showed up, the Sox were pretty good at developing young talent like Beni, JBJ, Betts, Bogie, Devers, Chavis, ERod, etc. Now, not so much. The Sox under DD seem to be following a trail blazed by the estimable NY Yankees, the wealthiest MLB franchise, who have historically not hesitated to spend big bucks for overpriced talent. That is exactly how I would characterize our current rotation. Thus I'm inclined to agree with moonslav59, our own talksox GM/owner, who says it's time to go back to an earlier formula of developing young talent while also acquiring some key "outside" talent. DD has never shown any ability or patience in developing talent.

While I am of course torqued at Porcello for the final dinger, I completely agree with the decision to leave him in until he gave up that final dinger to make the score 6-0 after 4 1/2 innings. Yes, absolutely, the bullpen did a heckuva job shutting down the Twins for 5 innings, but that was as hard to predict as that 4 run rally in the bottom of the 5th. I don't have much faith in Porcello this year, but before last night he had a very good August and earlier had pitched well against the Twins. Too many of the Sox starters are crappy at keeping the ball low in the strike zone, and Porcello is the worst of them all. Ironically, that pitch Devers hit out was a great slider, low and inside.