moonslav59

I'm not sure what the issue is. Did most of us want Ben and Bloom to stay longer? I don't think it's volatile to drive away two guys who led the team to 3 last place finishes in 4 years. The issue is really about 2 guys and why they left or were fired: Theo and DD. I see no pattern of volatility, here. Argue that JH & Co. made mistakes in hiring Ben & Bloom, in the first place, if you must, but replacing them was what most Sox fans likely wanted and thought was the right thing to do. One can argue, both were hired to do something many Sox fans don't want to accept, namely rebuild a team, and to some extent, that's what they both did. Theo wanted more control, and chose to move on, when he was not given it. DD, in my opinion, was not willing to go along with the "new plan" of a major rebuild, which included a massive tightening of the budget after 2019 and a priority of not trading away anymore top prospects for immediate gains. IMO, had he stayed, it would not have worked out for either party, and he'd probably have left the following year, anyway. Just my take. To me, the only real similarity in departures was between Ben and Bloom, in terms of their 4 year histories, failure rates and a shift in team plans about to start. However, one was fired and one left when it became known his powers would be greatly diminished. That is a difference, but to me, it doesn't matter much, but it also does not support the claim that JH is volatile, IMO. They both left because they failed. Keeping them could have been viewed as volatile. Dareing a fan and media revolt.

He might be the one guy we really regret not protecting.

Trout has played an average of 79 games in the past 3 years- in peak prime years. Now, he's over 32. I'm all for making a super strong effort to get this team back into the mix. I just don't think going for shiny pieces is the way to do it. It might put more Sox fans in the stands or watching on TV, but my idea is to go for more reliable players, even if they are not as "shiny" as players like Trout.

They were, until they weren't.

Agreed. Trout still sells tickets.

They might still want to dump his salary to start over and spread it out more evenly, next time.

If I felt like Trout could play 140+ games for a few years, I'd be all for it, as might most others. Shiny superstars who rarely play are not what I think we should pursue.

All good reasons.

BTV accepted Duran & Crawford for B Garrett. Our OF/DH situation, without any additions would look like: DH: Yoshida LF: Abreu-Refsnyder (Yoshida) CF: Rafaela-Abreu RF: Dugo- Abreu (and we could trade Dugo and sign Duvall.)

It's not the $140M spent they look at. It's the $110M saved that might make it worthwhile. I doubt the Angels trade him and pay more than $70-80M. I doubt the Sox even ask about him.

The Las Vegas Hoes. Seriously, how about... The Aces The Neons The Neon Aces They could wear neon-colored uniforms.

You don't have to be all that good to be a better bet than Drohan, but if some of those 6-8 are minor league signings, like an Alfaro type, then yes...

Exactly. I'd rather have Wong than Vaz, even if they were at the same pay! Plus, he ain't winning rings. BTW, I'm tired of watching ex Sox players win rings, too.

MVP suggested we trade for him while LAA paid $140M of the close to $250M he is owed. I don't think it's worth the risk. Do you at $110M/7?

Yes, I know. I'd still pass. I'm tired of playing the IL two Step.

If we end up adding 6-8 new players to the 40, the difference between drohan and the bottomg of the 40 man roster guy should be negligible.

I'm not worried about losing Drohan. I had higher hopes for Ward and Song, and I wasn't too choked up losing them, either. Let's see, if there is one GM who likes Drohan that much.

I'm not arguing Duran will be better, although Duran would likely replace ref in LF after PH'ing or PR'ing in most those other 42 games. I'm not for adding $100M to the budget with an oft-injured LF'er, when we have too many LF'ers as it is. Sure, he'd look shiny in the "on paper" line-up, and maybe he'd get a few more fans in the seats, only to be disappointed he's on the benhc that game, but the plusses don't outweigh the gains.

And, what he thinks about Wong and McGuire's current and possible skill levels behind the plate and how well they work with our staff.

The thing Garver brings, besides a likely step down on catcher D is a big plus on offense from the catcher position. Every team plays and bats a catcher. We could make huge gains against most teams at that position, on offense. Adding someone who increases our LF or DH OPS by .100 might not match the increase we could get at catcher.

Nobody doubts Trout's skills and ability to be a 5+ WAR player, although after 32, it might not be so much of a sure bet, but it's all about staying on the field.

To play more than Trout by maybe a factor of 2-3, minimum.

The Angels would be dumping almost $150M, so maybe they'd say yes.

It's about the 26, too, although with the A's, not so much. BTW, I thought we had 4-6 guys I'd drop to keep Drohan on the 40- NOT the 26!

We can argue until we all turn blue about how and why Henry should spend more, but the reality is that he does, but only to a certain degree. There will be a finite budget, this winter, like it or not. What we spend on one player, we won't on another or others. That's just the way it is. I'd rather we spend on pitching, pitching and more pitching, and not injury prone, declining players. I doubt Trout matches Pujols' numbers post 32... .754 OPS He won't come close to 122 games per year, and AP did that over 10 more years after 32. Trout's .968 OPS since 2020 looks nice and shiny in preseason line-ups on paper, but he's averaged 79 games in the past 3 seasons (336 PAs.) That was during "peak physical prime." Seriously, I'd rather have Yoshida, even if they were paid the same, so it's not about just the "almighty budget."