moonslav59

There was obvious tension, for whatever reasons. I don't see JH's volatility as being the or even a major factor in his departure. A change in direction is commonplace in all sports. I think volatile is too strong a word.

Newsflash! Sox looking to add to their rotation, this winter... https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/...on-market.html ...Ian Browne of MLB.com suggested in an appearance on the ITM podcast that the Boston front office prefers Montgomery to Snell or Nola... ...It’s also possible the Sox look to the trade market for rotation help. It’s difficult to envision the Rays trading Tyler Glasnow in division. Players like Corbin Burnes or Shane Bieber could be available as they enter their final seasons of arbitration eligibility...

The "myth" point was about the perception he was fired.

I think it would have been against the team's plan of scamming the fans and media to come out and say, "We let DD go, because we are about to tear down the team and start from scrtach and... A) we did not feel DD was the GM for that task and new direction." or DD was not on board with the plan and was actively challenging our new direction, so we felt we had to let him go." If either of these were true, do you really think JH or some team spokesman would have uttered those words?

I think many teams use a plan where they do not try hard to win it all, every year. They realize there are times where there is a confluence of factors that indicate it is a good time to build up or begin to rebuild. It's not a sure fire plan, and outlier seasons happen along the way- good and bad. We have had some seasons where it looks like we should have been contenders, on paper, but were not, and others that showed the opposite. That doesn't change the fact that this type of plan is a bad one. I don't think the description "volatile" fits.

I thought you felt it was now Cora.

You think he'd have wanted to stay on through the massive budget cut and change in the organizational shift towards farm-building and the long term future? To me, that was one major reason for the friction that began building up after 2018. Whether DD was told not to trade major prospects or to not spend large and long on anyone beyond the Sale & Nate extensions is something up for debate, but I think it was real. I'm not 100% sure DD would have been the "right GM" for that new direction. One could argue Ben and Bloom were not the "right GMs" to man a team about to go "all in," as well.

I disagree, but I can see how some see it that way. There are times in almost every organization, where there is a shift to or from rebuilding or seriously trying to compete. Even under Theo, it seemed like they "went for it" much harder in some years vs others. Under Ben, the 2013 season was not "planned," IMO. It was supposed to be a rebuild season towards 2014 and beyong being better. (It just didn't turn out that way.) Many of us saw the writing on the wall from 2017-2018, and knew we'd have to regroup and reset, at some point. I don't view the cycle plan as being volatile. I think it's been a successful plan at winning rings every 3-5 years. We are overdue, now.

I meant in terms of which selectee has a better chance of becoming really good.

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.