moonslav59

If I had to do a ranking, now, I might rank teams like this: 1. Michigan 2. Washington 3. Georgia 4. Texas 5. Alabama 6. Mizzou 7. Oregon 8. FSU 9. Ohio St 10. Ole Miss 11. LSU 12. ND 13. AZ 14. Penn St. 15. Oklahoma

No doubt. I have never thought Sale will pitch the same or more innings than Gio. I would project he at least doubles his IP in 2024. I totally get it. His skill level has been a big issue over the last 2 years. They both are reclamation projects to differing degrees and reasons.

I think his defense at 2B may be the deciding factor and is the big unknown with his overall value. I'm not sure what past history shows, but my guess is many so-so SSs on D become plus 2Bmen.

I could see us trade the "high priced" Pivetta and maybe Jansen and or Martin. I think we'll keep Duran, even if we sign Teoscar (sigh.)

I get that, but recent 1, 2 and 3 year numbers are usually better indicators of future success than 3, 4 and 5 years ago numbers. I totally get the Sale risk factor. I went from calling him Chris Freakin' Sale to Freakin' Chris Sale. The one caveat is that his more recent injuries were not all arm related, and he did go over 100 IP, in 2023- something he has not done since 2019. People want to point to Gio's first 18 starts of 2023, which is fine. Those are promising numbers, but so were Sale's last 15 starts of 2023: 9-6 team record 3.16 ERA 3.41 FIP .632 OPS Against 95 Ks and 19 BBs in 80 IP The guy still has promise. I hope Gio can do well, but he's still a reclamation project to a large degree. Here are his numbers by thirds of seasons, in reverse order, starting from the last third of 2023: ERA/FIP (RED =4.40+ and Blue =below 3.50) 7.14/6.88 3.71/4.89 3.98/4.17 4.88/3.65 5.94/4.13 3.88/4.41 He's had an ERA over 4.88 in 3 of his last 5 thirds of a season. He's had an FIP above 4.13 in 5 of his last 6 thirds and over 4.40 in 3 of his last 6 thirds of a season. 2021 (much better and more consistent) 3.19/3.73 3.61/3.73 4.04/4.03 2020 (12 GS) 3.48/3.19 2019 3.94/3.96 3.42/3.37 2.85/2.93

I thought it was a given that pitchers are higher risks.

Then, we must be free.

I certainly think we've seen a pattern over the years, and more and more of our very best players leaving via free agency. The biggest change I see is that they are not being replaced, in kind or anywhere near in kind. BTW, we did extend Lester beyond his years of control. We just did not extend him again. Same with Bogey. When we let Pedro walk and saw Schill retire, we soon traded for Beckett and later signed Lackey. When we lost Beckett and Lackey, we eventually signed Price and traded for Sale (and extended him.) We also traded for Porcello & extended him. We traded for Nate and re-signed him, too. Had Sale done great, we might be thinking more about the few we have extended. When we dumped Crawford and included AGon (and beckett) in the trade, we did spend that next winter and won the ring in 2013. That stopped happening after we lost Kimbrell/Kelly and then Betts, Price and later Porcello and ERod. In the last 2-3 off seasons, we have spent a lot during the winter, but often not equal to what we lost. I get the part of being a fan that wants to see continuity and keeping our best players helps with that, but it didn't seem to matter as much when we were winning. Losing Pedro is not a big deal, as he was declining and hurt when we let him walk, but we also lost Damon, Beltre (one year guy but great), Agon, Beckett, Lester, Lackey and more but won rings not long after (some the very next season.) It sucked, in many cases, but we rebuilt quickly and won again. That has not happened since 2018, except for the 2021 season that was not a result of good and big winter signings. In the context of biggest winter signings & extensions in Red Sox history, the Devers, Story and Yoshida (counting the fees) signings were among the largest. Devers is the largest. (The Sale, Bogey and Nate deals were not too long ago either.) The problem seems to be we picked the wrong guys to spend large and long on. I wonder if the Devers extension was predicated on the idea that they were going to tighten up the winter budgets to pay for him.

Indeed. Right before the trade we did extend Sale & Bogey and re-signed Nate. We did let Kimbrell & Kelly go, which to me was the first sign of the shift. Finding out we almost traded Betts & Price the summer before is further evidence of the change in direction. It is noteworthy that the Devers extension blows away any other signing or extension.

We've seen some big extensions and re-signings, too. We extended/re-signed: Pedro, Schilling, Papi (many times) Beckett, Pedey (twice), Youk, AGon Porcello, Sale, Nate, Bogey (w opt out) Devers

I doubt we can ever extend him, so yes.

To make it equal, we'd have had to give $5.8M more than we did.

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.