moonslav59

We have been doing it more than before, but still not at the level other teams seem to be doing it. No doubt, we have a ways to go. Winckowski Whitlock Pivetta (not a prospect) Schreiber Bernardino Z Kelly We just added a bunch of pitchers who might be good: Campbell Fitts Slaten Weissert and more

No. BTV has this: ATL -5.7 Sale 17M Cash (11.3 total) BOS 17.1 Grissom NET: BOS +5.8

Nothing can be "decidedly" at his age and sample size in the bigs.

This doesn't belong on the realistic thread, but here it goes: Mayer & Duran to MIA Edward Cabrera (from MIA), Yorke & Wikelman to MIL Luzardo (3 yrs) and Burnes (1 yr) to BOS

When did Mayer look like a great hitter? You guys do know, to get a really good pitcher, we have to give up 1 or 2+ really good players back. Would you really prefer to give up Anthony and Teel over Mayer, because that might be the demand, if no Mayer. They will not take back ten 10 value player for Luzardo. Who would you give, instead? (No more than 3 players going to MIA.) Note: they have a 2Bman. 51 Casas 48 Bello 45 Mayer 42 Anthony 34 Duran 24 Crawford 22 Houck 22 Bleis 18 Teel 17 Grissom 13 Yorke (have 2Bman) 12 Rafaela 10 Schreiber 9 Winckowski 8 Abreu 6 Wikelman 4 Walter or Perales

IMO, Anthony and Teel are better and play positions we need in 1-2 years. We have Story and Grissom, Reyes and EValdez, Yorke and Romero, Cespedes and Zanetello. We even have Rafaela to play at SS or 2B, if we are in a pinch, but I prefer letting him try and win an OF job. You have to give to get, and we've drafted about 10 SS types in recent years. Teams looking to trade a top SP'er are more likely to demand 2 out of Mayer, Anthony, Teel or maybe even Bleis, so I'm trying to think of ways we can get one by just giving up one, and the one with the most value seems to be Mayer. (Some GMs might demand Anthony.) These trades we accepted by BTV, and had us giving up more value than we received: MIA is rumored to be shopping a SP'er for some offense. I'd like to get either one of these two pitchers: Luzardo (63.3) 3 years of control Garrett (57.7) 5 years of team control If these values are correct, add Wikelman (5.7,) Perales (3.5) or maybe Mata (2.2) to get Luzardo over Garrett: Mayer (44.5) and Houck (22.1)= 66.6 Casas (50.9) and Rafaela (12.3)= 63.2 (sign Chapman?) Duran (34), Crawford (24.4) and Wikelman (5.7)= 60.1 If we can find a team that wants a 2Bman and likes Yorke, we could try something like this: Duran (34,) Yorke (13.3) and Schreiber (9.7)= 57.0 These 3 for 1 deals are often problematic, but since Mayer and Yorke are not 40 man roster players, now, teams add them without creating a major roster crunch. (All the others have options but need to be on the 40.) Perhaps some teams might want 2 out of the 3 non 40 man roster players. Here is an interesting one: To MIA: Mater, Schreiber, E R-C and Andrew Vaughn (from CWS) To CWS: Yorke To BOS: Luzardo I'd do this one: Luzardo to BOS Duran, Schreiber and Edgar Quero (CWS) to MIA Yorke and Wikelman to CWS

Very true. The Mariners gave up a lot to get Castillo, and then they extended him at a reasonable rate. I'm not sure the extension part will be like his was, again. It's hard to know if any, or more importantly, the right GM really likes a guy like Mayer (or Duran & Yorke,) enough to offer a fine pitcher with control. Maybe another team can top our offer. On paper, we seem to have enough prospects pieces to match or beat almost any team looking to make a deal like this. The problem is, the other teams probably like the same top prospects we do. It's not that I dislike Mayer, but many teams have a need at SS, and I like Anthony and Teel better in many ways. I like Bleis, too, and feel his trade value is too low, right now to use him as part of a package, unless the other team insists and we less the rest of the package to compensate for his high ceiling value. On signing big FAs: they have almost always been major to huge overpays, but it does seem to be at absurd levels for the very best. I don't see Gray or ERod's contracts as proportionally higher overpays than Lackey, Sale of the Porcello extensión, so maybe we just need to face the facts and pull the trigger on one guy not being hugely overpaid. I'm not going to cry over spilled milk, but some very good pitchers have signed for about what was expected. Maybe, we could, too (and still stay under the set budget limit- whatever that might be,)

I think they are a higher risk. I know we have done far better drafting everyday players than pitchers, even back to the Theo days (maybe not "far better" but better.) I do think we were bad at finding good pitchers and pitcher development, we have done better since the Houck call up. My hopes, when we hired Bloom, was that he'd take some guys with him or find similar guys to do what the Rays seem to do well. I'm not so sure our system, in this area, was better when he left. It's not easy changing a whole system, overnight. IMO, it's easier to make a trade of a few everyday prospects for a young pitcher, while we take the time and make the effort to improve the whole pitcher production process from start to finish. Maybe Brez is the guy- maybe not. I had hopes Bloom was, and we know how he did. The hoarding of prospects did occur for a short while under Ben, but this has gotten to the point of absurdity. To me, if looks like they are planning for 2026, but I am still seeing a chance they are working, as we speak, towards making a big splash trade of prospects for a pitcher. I am not for entering the 2024 draft wit a plan to just draft pitchers for the sake of drafting them. I'm sure some promising pitchers will be there for our slot, so I'm not saying or hinting we could or would be drafting long shot pitchers over a stud SS or CF'er. But I just don't think going into a draft with any position in mind as the major determining factor is not only a mistake, it's a huge one. I have no idea, if a trade will be made, but if it was up to me, I'd start with one of these packages... Mayer & Rafaela plus...? Duran & Yorke plus...? I might think of adding Crawford, Houck, Whitlock, Schreiber or Winckowski, if it can bring us a top SP'er with 3+ years of control. I'm not predicting it, but I have not written that chance off. Who knows, maybe we trade Pivetta to add more budget space and end up signing Monty or Snell, but that seems like a longer shot, to me.

The Rays model includes trading for Young pitchers from other teams. Look, I'm all for putting major resources into finding, scouting, acquiring and developing the best young pitchers in the world. Indeed, if we are not ever going to sign a big FA pitcher, again, then this is essential. It also takes time: usually a lot of time. It does not mean we should decide to copy the Angels and draft any and every pitcher possible. I know you are not advocating that, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can never support a plan that involves purposely drafting inferior players, just because they pitch. If it's a real close call, then make that the deciding factor, especially in the mid to later rounds, but when you have a top 7 to 15 pick, I'm always for taking the best and or least riskiest player out there. How to decide which factor matters most (best vs less risky) is a hard nut to crack, and it is the risk factor that usually brings down pitching candidates. Can or should we tweak that balance a bit? I'm not so sure. I'm also no more convinced we can pull it off, as in start drafting and developing top pitchers by the next draft, as I am that we will never spend agai or make a trade. I'm actually thinking a big trade for a young SP is in the works, as we speak. Why? Because it costs JH nothing.

Love seeing ALA go down right away. Great game. These past 2 days do seem to support ALA belonged over FSU. I do think GA had a strong case to be in the final 4, and I said it back then. If it's about choosing the best 4 teams, I'm not sure how GA was not one, based only on the recency of their one loss before selection day.

Tough question. $10M AAV can get us something good, by itself. Adding $10M AAV to a tight budget can mean we spend $25M on a pitcher not $15M. That difference could be huge. Our total remaining winter budget is not likely $10M or less. It could mean signing 2 player at $5M more a piece and getting 2 better players. If you count it as only $10M total, not much. It gets us the next Kluber or Richards, but it's also almost enough to get the 2022 Wacha plus Hill. In 2024, $10M gets you guys like this: $11M/1 Lance Lynn $10.5M Kiermaier $9M/1 J Heywood $8.5M Wade Miley $5M/1 Will Smith + $4M for Maldanado or Austing Hedges.

And nobody has come up with a reasonable solution on how we can be sure we get a top pitching draft pick right. But, actually, we have come up with some very reasonable solutions: the Sox just don't agree with them or try to enact them. 1. Sign a damn pitcher that is not a reclamation project would be a solution more likely to work than drafting a pitcher just for the sake of him being a pitcher and not being the best talent available. 2. Trade some of these non pitching prospects we drafted so highly, some of which appear to have very good trade value for the young and controlled SP'ers we never drafted or developed. (It worked, at least 3 times after the Pedro trade.) These ideas haven't "worked," because they have not been tried. Hell, the best somewhat high prospect trade we have made in the last 4 years was actually trading a pitching prospect (Aldo Ramirez) for a big bat (Schwarber.) It seems like an easier and quicker solution by doing 1 and or 2 than to attempt to revamp the scouting, development and drafting aspects or our whole system. I'm all for the revamp, but it would not automatically mean they new guys will or should draft an inferior prospect, just because he's a pitcher. Not drafting pitchers highly does make it harder to produce a top pitcher, but to me, it's more about development and finding gems in rounds 3 or worse. We should do that plus #1 anytime and #2, when needed.

I really don't get the whole "apologist" angle. Sure, some tried to explain why they chose an under slot guy pick one, but it's not like it's an absurd idea, in theory. It turns out the choice does not look good, right now. It looks more likely like a bust than even a useful utility player projection. I get that and don't disagree, that the pick looks bad, but so does Groome, T-Ball and others. Why does this one draft mean so much more than other ones that don't look so good, as of now? Hell, some already have almost a complete grade, and it's an F or D, at best? Even if we blew the Yorke pick, like it looks like we did, as Jordan and Drohan have now shown the underslot idea worked, this time, I still think many other drafts were just as bad, considering not picks after round 5.

Agreed. It's great having a guy who takes the ball very 5 days, but is a 5 man rotation of Giolito's and Pivetta's getting us closer to respect? That being said, I can see the chances a decent plus. Grissom could be the 2Bman we have been looking for. If we end up spending the Sale "savings." wisely, maybe we can see very nice gain from this trade. Putting lost FAs aside, here is the net change: Lost: Sale, Dugo, Urias (Drohan, RFern, N Robertson) Gained: Giolito, O'Neill, Grissom, Campbell, Slaten, Fitts, Weisert Looks again, like more quantity than quality and hoping these guys do well.

Very concerning, and the Nate signing was not really adding any new pitcher from the previous season. In that respect, Giolito is the highest paid, out-of system FA pitcher signing since Price. (Porcello and Sale were extensions, after we traded for them.) When you couple this with no drafting or developing young pitchers very well, until maybe recently, it's no wonder our rotation looks like a list of 7-8 guys with question marks hanging from their necks.

You mean they knew he wouldn't be around by round 3? Could very well be. IMO, the slot money was another factor. They paid Yorke about $900K underslot. Later, they took Jordan at about $1.08M overslot and Drohan $$236K over. It was a 4 man draft due to COVID with no second round pick. I'm more upset about several other drafts than that one. (17th York, 89th Jordan, 118th Wu-Yellans and 148th Drohan) The first 2 picks of '22 (24th Romero & 41st Coffey look worse, so far, although getting Anthony at #79 was a steal. Some later picks combined may outdo Romero and Coffey. Perhaps we should have drafted a pitcher 79th. 2019 43. Cannon 69 Lugo 107 Zeferjahn 137 Song 167 Groshans 197 Chris Murphy (One of the few drafts we drafted 3 of the top 6 as pitchers. None have done much, if anything. Houck as the first pick in 2017 (#24) worked out pretty well. We also drafted Jake Thompson, Scherff and Schellenger, making it 4 pitchers in the top 3. (I'd still take the Teel, Mayer and Anthony drafts over this one.) While we are geeting back a ways in our history, we can also get a better read on their grades. 2016 (Anther draft with pitchers that did not work) 1st pick Groome (12th) 3rd (88th) Shaun Anderson 5th Shawaryn (148th) 6th Nogosek (178th) 2015: we avoids top pitchers in the draft (#171 Lakins) Many felt the Kopech draft at #33 in 2014 was one of our best pitching drafts, but he has not been good, for a few years, now. That #7 pick we had in 2013 was one of the highest we've ever had. We also drafted a pitcher 2nd: 7. T Ball 43. Stanky 113. Myles Smith 143. Corey Littrell (4 pitchers in the top 5 ended up being one of our worst drafts, ever.) I'm sticking with the draft the best SS idea (maybe an OF or C, here and there.)

We also dumped a lot of salary under team control for 2024: Sale, Urias and Dugo. They only counted FA additions. Still, a bit surprising. 8 teams have spent $0- 1.5M, so far.

Like, we should have drafted more T-Balls?

Espinosa or Kopech? I don't think Groome or Mata ever cracked the 100. Not Owens. ERod was traded for as a prospect. Was he ever top 100?

Sorry. My eyesight is bad and getting worse. I thought you were Randy continuing our discussion of drafting pitchers. My bad.

I'm not going to assume drafting a few more pitchers higher up would translate to us have a top pitching prospect or more. Certainly, it improves the odds, but to me, and it seems like most MLB teams, drafting the player most likely to make an impact, no matter what position they play makes the most sense, and pitchers are higher risks, so they tend to not be drafted as highly, overall. I'm fine with thinking we need to improve our pitching from our system. IMO, we've already started, although some were acquired: Houck, Whitlock, Wink, Crawford, Bello... Here are the amount of pitchers drafted in the top 15: 4 in 2023 (11 non pitchers) 4 in '22 (3 in top 14) 7 in '21 (5 in top 12) 6 in '20 (5 in top 14) Pitchers taken shortly after Yorke:Bryce Jarvis, Cade Cavalli, Nick Bitsko, Jared Shuster 2 in '19 (#7 Nick Lodolo & Alek Manoa at #11 5 in '18 (4 in top 13: Casey Mize #1, Ryan Weathers #7, Carter Stewart #8 & Grayson Rodriguez #11) Would you say that highly drafted pitchers have done well in the last 5 drafts? If we just trade some everyday prospects for a solid young pitcher, out method is fine. (We used to do that and won rings shortly after many of the biggest trades of prospects: Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, Sale.

Hard to know, but it sounds correct.

Certainly, everyone will agree it was a good trade, if Sale gets hurt or underperforms, and/or Grissom does well, but that will be in hindsight. Right now, I see the trade as being a big risk. Brez seems to like hard throwers. I get the injury risk factor is off the charts, but to me, the balance of the trade flips to to a nicer deal, if we use that $10M to get a better SP'er or OF'er, or whatever.

I don 't either. We already have these players, whose best position is LF (or DH:) Yoshida Duran O'Neill Refsnyder Why add one more. Get an OF'er who can play RF or CF (or both.)

That's not a good way to approach a draft.