moonslav59

Some near upsets in the top 15, but nothing major. #3 Ohio St squeaked by #7 Penn St #6 OK beat UCF by 2. #8 Texas held on vs HOU. #11 ALA came back and beat TN by 14. #14 UT beat #18 USC by 2 Not much change in the Coaches' Poll: 1. GA (15 players drafted from last year's team) 2. MI 3. Ohio St 4. FSU 5. Wash 6. OK 7. TX (first 1 loss team) 8. ORE 9. ALA 10. Penn St 11. Ore St 12. Ole Miss 13. UT 14. ND (first 2 loss team) 15. LSU 16. MO 17. NC 18. Louisville 19. AF (7-0) 20. Duke 21. TN 22. Tulane 23. UCLA 24. USC 25. James Madison (7-0) Blue= ND played, this year

Why would you even ask me a question like that? Of course, there would be a long list of people who would love to be the coach at ND. You make a lot of assumptions about not searching and knee-jerk reactions. You act like interviews are the most important aspect about finding the right person. It might be, in some cases, especially on close calls where many candidates are similar and already liked by the hiring team. Notre Dame is a unique university. They would likely not even consider over half of any good coaches that inquired about the job opening. To you, "more qualified" is what you want. That's not a bad thing to have. It's not always the best thing. They obviously liked Freeman. Maybe they liked him more than anyone else, and didn't need to "search" anymore. Maybe they felt he might sign elsewhere, if they waited. You "like Freeman," so we got someone you like. I'm not sure why you assume we'd have done better with someone who seems to have more "qualifications."

There was no opt out after 2020, except for a mutual one based on injury. per cots... may opt out of contract after both 2019 ($2.5M buyout) and 2020 seasons (no buyout) 2021 and 2022 seasons become mutual options if Martinez has a Lisfranc injury or complication to his right foot causing him to be: 1) on the disabled list for 60 days or more in previous season, or 2) on the disabled list for 10 days or more in the previous season and 120 days or more in the two previous seasons combined, or 3) on the disabled list at the end of the previous season and found not able to play at the start of the next season

Good point- maybe 2nd and third, then for the 12th.

No doubt. Keeping Schwarber over Dalbec would have been the right move, no matter the added cost. We still would not have made the playoffs in 2022 or 2023. That's the "scoreboard," too.

They should have taken Dugo, Maeda and Wong.

Indeed, there was a reason Schwarber played mostly LF in 2021. By the end of 2021, Dalbec had 545 career PAs and an .819 OPS (114 OPS+.) Per 650 PAs, his line would have been: .244 41 120, which is almost exactly what Schwarber's is, now. Although he had a horrible playoffs, he was a big part of us getting there. He finished the '21 season with an .867 OPS over his last 103 games (345 PAs). Over that stretch he averaged this over 650: .256 44 120. Bobby Dee is a good cautionary tale on not getting your hopes up too highly based on a players first 300 to 600 PAs.

Sounds like a good idea. I'd start it in the 11th. In the 12th, put the man on 3rd.

lol!

Isn't forcing people to go both ways illegal in Florida and many other states?

Bloom outbidding DD would have really been something.

I do not think any team was willing to pay more than Dugo, Wong and Downs for Betts and 1/2 Price. Probably 25 or more teams couldn't even afford the two. The Schwarber bolting to the Phillies was his choice. We had a DH and chose not to outbid them. It was reasonable, at the time, but Schwarber sure has looked great since he left, despite the .207 BA and back-to-back league leading K totals (415 in 1162 ABs!) Bloom offered Nate a QO and an offer larger than the Rangers gave him. Nate said no, and he moved on and signed other players. I really wanted both back, too. I'd have topped the Wacha deal he got. I was all for a firesale in 2022, including trying to talk Bogey into allowing a trade. Agreed. I think many fans would have been super pissed- like those pissed about him trading Betts. He did add McGuire, Abreu, EValdez and Rosier in 2022, but I agree- it should have been more. (Look at the grief he got for dumping just Vaz. Imagine him dumping JD, Bogey, Nate, Wacha, Hill and Strahm!) Still, he shoulda done it- agreed. I was not for dumping in 2023, but that would have helped, too. I think Bloom did a pretty good job with his additions to the 2022 team, but the 2021 team did not return what they gave that year. The additions were not enough. The pen neglect came back to bite his ass. He fixed that for 2023, but playing Whack-a-Mole is something he was not good at. Kluber was not a bad gamble for a 5th starter type, but we needed a 1 and 3, at worst. He spent almost all the winter budget on batting (Yoshida & Duvall) and the pen (Jansen & Martin.) He blew it and deserved to be fired.

10 years ago, the Sox were in the middle of a 3 years period of spending under the tax line. This is not something new for JH. He has spent in cycles. The major difference is that more teams have passed his spending levels. I get the argument: we charge more for tickets, so we should spend more than most or all other owners, but that's not how business works. You charge what people will pay. You give them a product good enough to keep them paying. (This last point is pushing the limits, of late.) I don't buy the "JH has lost focus on the Sox." He is a very capable business man. He is able to delegate when and where needed, or he wouldn't be where he is, right now. He may or may not choose to splurge again, and it seems more apparent, the fate of the Sox future may depend on that happening- or not. The building up of the farm is a common strategy designed to lessen the need to splurge as much and as often as you might with a weaker farm, but that remains to be seen.

Of course, it seems fair to allow only the best record teams into any playoff structure, but with unbalanced schedules and division formats, we cannot really be sure a better record is a better team, unless they are many games ahead. Fans want to see their team in the playoffs, and fans from an inferior team that made the playoffs from a crappy division, probably don't care much the kept a better team out. Either way, more teams means more money, and we know that's what it is all about. That's what it's always been about. The randomness of baseball makes it more likely underdog teams can win any given series, and the smaller the series, the better chance they have. When inferior teams win, it does cheapen the meaning of the 162 game season and the efforts put out bu the better teams, but money will always trump fairness, and if the fans enjoy it more, there will be no stopping it. There are ways to level the playing field, but traditionalists are already pissed at many of the recent changes to the game, including the DH (not so recent, except for the NL expansion,) no shifts, pitch clocks... A totally balanced schedule, or getting closer to one would help keep weaker teams out, if you also do away with the 3 division structure and the rule that all division winners get a playoff slot. I know many fans already hate interleague play, but the unbalanced schedules and divisions are the major cause for teams like the 2006 Cardinals even getting a shot at winning it all. Some might argue the 2006 Cardinals give hope to all decent but undeserving teams and fans, but if the idea is to be as fair as possible while giving the fans what they want, and the owners more money they want, then major changes might be needed. Here is one plan that could be used: 1. Make 3 regional divisions of 10 teams. (If MLB ever expands to 32 teams, it could be 4 divisions of 8 teams.) It would be highly unlikely a division winner doesn't have a top 16 record. There is no AL and NL. 2. 16 teams make the playoffs: 3 division winners + 13 WC teams. They are seeded by record, not by division winner status. 3. All playoff rounds are 7 games, which would help minimize the "luck factor." This would also increase the amount of playoff games and create more excitement for fans and more money for the owners and players who make the playoffs. The schedule would be the bitch. Everyone playing the exact same amount of games vs everyone else is impossible, unless they change the amount of games in a season. (162 games/ 29 other teams does not create a whole number. It's 5.59.) Some sort of minimal unbalanced structure would have to be designed. 5 games vs 12 teams and 6 games vs 17 teams. Some obvious points of contention would arise, such as the taking away of so many interdivisional rivalry games during a season, and how much attendance, viewership and fan excitement would be reduced, during the season. How are the 5 games vs 6 games determined? (Previous season records? Rotating teams, so over a certain amount of seasons, it becomes more "leveled?") Maybe you always play 6 games vs your 9 other division foes and then 5 vs 12 other division foes and 6 vs 8 others, but still that makes for just one home series of 3 games vs the Yanks for Sox fans. Another schedule idea would be to move away from as balanced a schedule as can be made but still a more balanced schedule than we have, now: 8 games vs 9 division foes (72 games) + 4 games vs one other division and 5 games vs the other division (90 games.) 10 games vs 9 division foes (90 games) + 3 games vs 8 other teams and 4 games vs 12 other teams (72 games) Or, you just shorten the season, since the playoffs will be expanded. Going to 16 teams without changing the 3 division and 2 different league set-up seems like it will further mess up the fairness while cheapening the value of the 162 game season. I guess with 8 teams making the playoffs in each league, it would make it almost impossible for a division winner to NOT have a top 8 record, so there would likely never be a 2006 Cardinals team, again, but it would still remain unfair (but less so) for teams in much better divisions. If we applied the 16 game playoff structure to 2023, the Mariners and Yankees would have made the playoffs. The Sox and Guardians would have stayed in the race longer and missed by 4 games. If you seeded by record only, it would have been 7 game series between these teams: 1. BAL vs 8. NYY 4. TEX vs 5. TOR 2. TBR vs 7. SEA 3. HOU vs 6. MIN Another thing that could be done to add more value to the regular season, would be to re-seed the bracket after every round, by regular season record, so if a low-seeded team wins round one, they'd face the best remaining team in round two.

Do I need to say it every post or be accused of “ignoring it?”

I’m not a crapshoot believer. I would not think AZ was the best team, now, even if they win it all.

Just because we don't "admit it," everytime we post, doesn't mean we don't already know it.

Indeed, even with a Cy Young winner on the mound vs a pen game by the opps.

Maybe they used up their breaks, already winning those 2 of 5.

How many of these jobs are actually given out based on the strength of the interview? I'm not trying to make a point, here, but I do wonder how much the interviews even matter.

Maybe they just couldn't understand your sarcasm and sense of humor.

It's often hard to know when you are being serious. How many of those 3 did they draft, thinking there was a good chance they'd do both in the bigs? Why not let Dalbec pitch?

I think the new regime will be set up pretty nicely: No huge albatross contracts. Sale's deal ending after 2024- along with the aged Jansen & Martin. It's hard to know what the next few winter spending budgets will be, and that might be the defining aspect for the early years of the next regime. The farm appears to be much stronger, and we've already seen a bunch of young players making or starting to make an impact. The addition of some quality Rule 5 protectees should make the 40 man roster look as solid as it has in 4-5 years. The 26 man roster appears to have 2-3 major holes (SP1, SP2 and big RHB) and maybe 2-3 minor holes (SP4, LH RP and maybe 2B/CF, whichever is not filled by the "big RHB.") The PR front needs serious attention and improvement, but if the plan is to keep "saving money" for another year or two, even telling the truth, for once, won't likely help much. The next GM/HOBO needs to hit squarely on his big moves. That is not something the odds support. We may need some luck or some major bouncebacks from guys like Sale, Story, Houck, Whitlock, Dugo and or Urias. If we can fill 3-4 slots with positive value players, we may not need everything to go right to make the playoffs. To win it all, we likely will need that to happen.

It's hard to know what "mandate," top priorities or guidelines were put in place by Henry. We may never find out. We've all hear the don't sign and over 30 pitcher to a long term deal one, enough times, and that was lifted for DD to sign Price. We can guess the choices to reset the budget, every so often, came from JH. The massive budget cut from 2019 to 2020, which came right after the extensions handed out to Sale, Bogey and Nate seemed like a JH mandate, which forced the trade of Betts, 1/2 Price with no in kind replacements for them or the departing Porcello. (The winter before, there was no in kind replacements for Kimbrell and Kelly, either.) Henry has gone through some periods of cut spending, before. This is not brand new. Going almost 5 years is new, though. Years we stayed under the tax line under JH: 2008-2009 (3yrs) Theo 2012-2014 (3yrs) Ben 2017 (1 yr) DD 2020-2021 (2 yrs) Bloom 2023 (1 yr) Bloom Theo 3 out of 10 yrs Ben 3 out of 4 DD 1 out of 4 Bloom 3 out of 4 Total: 10 out of 22 years

That Altuve HR was like a punch in the gut.