moonslav59

I could definitely see us trading Dugo or Duran, but not both, I could see us trying to open up more playing time to Rafaela (RHB) and or Abreu (LHB). I see trading Jansen and Martin as an indicator of "punting" on 2024, because I doubt we can replace them, in kind, at the same cost. Would trading them force Houck and or Whitlock into one or both of those roles? Does Breslow try to walk the line and try to keep the perception we will try to compete in 2024 while dealing all or most one year players, which might also include Sale, someone you did not mention in this last post?

We could improve more slots on the 26 than I highlighted in RED, but I doubt we try to do it all in one winter. I doubt we even try to greatly improve all the ones in red. Most of the talk has centered on the rotation, and rightly so, but I can imagine a winter where we only add one SP'er and once again, pin our hopes that Bello & Sale hold down the 2-3 slots and someone from Crawford, Pivetta and Houck fill in the 4-5 slots. It's no secret I'd like to see us add 2 solid SP'ers and a decent #4 type, but in reality, hoping for just 2 solid SP'ers may be a pipedream. With the money we have to spend and still not go over the tax line, IMO, it should not be a pipedream.

I agree, but I know more about the specifics of the Astros "tank," due to living here and hearing what top brass was saying to fan through the "lean years." The Rays did it for a while, but it's harder to know if it was mostly about getting top draft picks, because they barely spent more, after they started winning. Their strategy is just spend as little as possible, but still try to win. It's hard to imagine teams like PIT and KC telling themselves, "let's not try to win." I'm sure they all look at OAK and TBR and think, let's be like them, but it's not easy to win without spending more. One thing to think about, if MLB imposed a min team budget of $100M, it would likely make it much harder for big spending teams to win, without going to absurd spending lengths, like the Mets tried. The Sox haven't been able to win with a constant budget over $200M.

They should have forced a team minimum budget that increased every year. If teams do not meet the rule, they could lose their revenue sharing, which to me, would "incentivize" those owners more than taking away draft picks or reducing pool money. I like the idea of trying to give worse teams a better chance to catch up, but only if they are legitimately trying to do so.

The Astros admitted to their fans they were waiting to stockpile young players and would spend big in a few years. That is "tanking." Then, they did what they promised.

Again, you chose just a 3 year stretch, when their tank was for longer than that, and having a higher pick in each round helped them get better. Also, I think getting a guy like Correa with your top pick, every 3 years, is not something I'd call a downside. Getting constant picks in the 10-20 slots don't even do that well.

Indeed, and there may be several reasons to not try to win. To me, the biggest reason is to not spend on the player salary budget, so they can make more money. Some teams do seem to want to do that but also compete, so they may value higher draft picks and signing pools more highly that those who don't seem to ever try to make the playoffs. Oak & TBR might be the best examples of the this. Some posters were suggesting we "tank" the end of the season to just move up a few slots in the draft, so it's not like the idea that it is not just about getting the top pick or 2 is not something new.

IMO, yes and yes. The Astros admitted it.

Getting the 3rd pick in every round is better than getting the 15th or 20th. I'm not sure the draft position is a major reason teams decide to not try to win. I'm not sure that is called tanking. I think the main reason teams decide not to try to win is about making more money. They appreciate the higher draft picks and more bonus pool money, but it's not the driving factor, IMO.

I know what people were talking about. Keep pretending you know what everyone wants to specifically talk about. Somehow your "Ted Talk" went from the hiring of Breslow to teams tanking to get the top pick, without anyone changing the direction of the flow of conversation. Magical!

Yanks-Padres have begun talks on a Juan Soto trade.

The first pick in MLB is not like the NFL or NBA. Getting to top 3-5 is still a nice spot to get to. Plus, now you get more bonus money and IFA bonus money, when you suck.

Why just pick a 3 year period? Yes, they had 3 really awful seasons (2011-2013,) but their tank last longer than that. They drafted Springer in 2011, after a 76 win 2010 season. They drafted Bregman & Tucker in 2015, after a 70 win season in 2014. They also drafted McCullers with the 41st pick in '12.

Either way works. I kind of like the idea that a bad team picking high can trade their top pick for something of value and then still spend more on lower slot picks, and still make out very well. It would make it hard for the "better team" to manage the money, and may lose out on some lower level picks.

I did not forget him. He didn't really get better or worse, after leaving. He is about like he was from '21-'22. It's weird how people assume people forget things, just because their posts aren't in great detail.

I like this idea.

It would be difficult to apply the cap numbers to a changing draft order. I guess an adjustment could be made with every trade. I like the idea of trades being allowed. I don't care much about the specifics.

It's weird how they don't do this, already. It would add a whole new dimension to draft day.

Back then, many teams like the Sox and Rays were able to stockpile picks by losing players to free agency. In 2011, we had 4 picks in the top 40. The Rays had 10 in the top 60 and 12 in the top 89, that year. They got Snell with their 7th pick at #52.

I forgot them? I listed some and said "among others."

Springs was the big punch in the gut. The martin Perez turn-around hurt, too. ERA+ 89 in 2 years w BOS in 176 IP 118 in 2 years w TEX in 338 IP, afterwards He did drop off in 2023, but if he was the 2022 season he had w TEX for us, we may have made the WS

There seems to be a pattern of ex-Sox players improving after leaving Boston. Brasier Kike Even JD had his best OPS+ since 2019. Payamps Martin Perez Springs I guess one could counter with names like... Vaz JBJ Beni Workman Among others.

Duran was more of an outlier than a common occurrence. Verdugo was never thought to be a plus RF'er. In fact, it seemed we went out of our way to keep him out of RF, until the Tommy Pham trade. He improved. Devers seemed to be improving, then poof! It does happen, but I agree, we should not expect it to happen. I'd like to hear that Casas is working hard on his D over the winter.

There certainly is flameout potential to Bloom's drafts, but it might take many years to get the final results. The amount of top picks going to HS players will prolong the final grade submission. It didn't help that his first draft was during COVID and was just 4 rounds deep. Yorke still shows promise. Drohan and Jordan, not so much, but still a little. 2021's draft included Mayer, but there are a few prospects clinging to some hopes: E R-C, Hickey, Dobbins, Guerrero, Troye and maybe Kavadas. Romero, the top pick from '22, could turn out a bust. C Coffey is about out of hopes. Anthony looks like a big prize (79th pick.) Rogers, Meidroth, I Coffey, Hoppe and maybe a couple others have some promise remaining. The '23 draft is still pretty fresh, but Teel did nothing to cause any more doubts. A few others looked good out of the gates. I'm hopeful Bloom's prospects do better than Ben & DD's: DD: Casas, Houck, Crawford Ben: Beni, Kopech, Beeks Theo's last draft blew away all of Ben's and DD;'s drafts combined: Betts, JBJ, Barnes, TShaw, Noe Ramirez

So, if we add nobody and lose all or FAs to be plus Turner, is this the opening day 26? C: Wong & McGuire 1B: Casas 2B: Urias & Reyes SS: Story 3B: Devers LF: Duran & Refsnyder CF: Rafaela & Abreu RF: Verdugo DH: Yoshida SP1: Bello SP2: Sale SP3: Crawford SP4: Pivetta SP5: Houck Closer: Jansen RP2: Martin RP3: Winckowski RP4: Schreiber RP5: Whitlock RP6: Bernardino RP7: Murphy RP8: Mata (out of options) or Kelly