moonslav59

Had to trade 1 year of Betts and got 5 years of Dugo and 5 years of Wong. I'm sure you call this a bad trade, despite a gun being held to his head. Beni for Wink & Gambrell is not over yet, and the money saved helped us sign Renfroe. You must count this as a loss and not an incomplete, right? Springs and Mazza for RHern- a clear loss. 2 months of Workman & Hembree (who both sucked afterwards) for Pivetta: You call this a loss? Renfroe for JBJ and DHam & Binelas- I'd say this is far enough along to not expect much from DHam, so calling this a loss is fine by me. (I'm still scratching my head.) Nothing for 1 year of Ottavino & F German (then German for Denlinger) Aldo Ramirez for Schwarber- really? A loss? Diekman for McGuire- was good if only as a salary dump- no dispute Groome for Hosmer, Cory Rosier (looking real good) & Max Ferguson 2 months of Vaz for Abreu and EValdez- a loss? Really? Cash for Reyes- a loss? Blaylock for Urias? (Some of the above could be called "minor.") Minor trades: Moreland for Rosario & Potts Pillar for Jacob Wallace for Wyatt Mills Scherff for Robles Northcutt for Pham JTaylor for Mondesi Barnes & $ for Bleier I'm not seeing anything close to 95%. Most are pushes.

I realize Cora needs to weigh how important it is to get Jansen some work and if eventually it would get to be so long he might be ineffective in his next game vs maybe needing him 2 games in a row in the following two games. It's not an easy choice, but it's certainly okay to discuss its merits. I never said it was a horrible or even a bad mistake. I just mentioned it, because it may have (see emphasis on "may") been a factor in why he pitched poorly, last night. I'm still a huge Cora fan and rarely question in game decisions. I'm not sure he made a mistake on this one.

How about this Kristian Campbell kid? He was the comp pick we got in the 4th round from Georgia Tech. Small sample size, for sure (just 49 ABs), but with just 1 HR, he leads our farm in OPS at 1.079 (among all players with 49+ ABs) .508 OBP .571 SLG Another SS drafted by the Sox! UGHHH!

So, did someone miscalculate a bonus, last year, or WTF happened? Not that it mattered for this year, we weren't going over, this year, anyway. The drop in comp pick slots hurt.

That's right. It was Abreu not Duvall in CF. My bad. If they call that an error, like they should, all 3 runs were unearned. Later, Jacques hits 2 batters with the bases loaded, which adds 2 runs scored to Crawford, and the excuse he lists first is "Crawford sucked." Okay, he let up the homer before out #4 in the inning. He did not pitch well, but losing is a team event, and defense is part of the team

Yes seven times. That's why we lost. We also lost because Jansen sucked. Why do only your reason count and ours go to Aunt Fanny? We won't know how Jansen might have done had he not pitched on Sunday. That does not mean we can't hypothesis about it. There are many reasons we lost- one was Jansen. You bashed me about saying the runs allowed to score because of Duvall's blunder, and now say you did not see it. Please stop, Max. All 3 runs scored should have been unearned vs Crawford in that inning. The next 2 were allowed to score by Jacques on HBPs with the bases loaded. I could easly cry, "Send your Craford stunk comment to Uncle Benny!"

I agree that pitching is the main issue- same as you. I've been beating the drum on pitching every year for 50 years, Max. The reason we did not win, this year, is because we did not add 2 capable SP'ers. We could have won with 2, despite the poor defense. That does not change the fact or minimize the impact our poor D had on our wins and losses, and be enough that we could have been a contender. Do you deny less erros are being charged, this year? Errors called per game: .060 in '21 .059 in '22 .057 in '23 it's a fact. It does affect the ERA, but ours would still suck, even with average D- just not as badly. You seem to deny the chance there could be more than 1 or 2 reasons a team can lose. Nobody is saying defense is the number one reason. I don't think anyone is saying it's even close to pitching, namely the rotation. I have posted dozens and dozens of posts about our s***** rotation. The main reason I have been talking about defense, recently is in response to your denying it has had a significant effect.

Despite the injury, he really didn't jump out and impress. He's young and has plenty of time to grow, but I have to think these farm basher people are going to go off on Mayer, while others say he's "untouchable."

That $4.15M has to be accounted for somewhere. I do wonder, if it might end up counting on the 2023 ledger, and maybe that was part of the reason we "left a few Million" on the table. Do bonuses count on the lux tax? Tuner has already earned $800K for reaching 544 PAs and gets another $200K for getting to 560.

Worse is answering a stupid question 3 times, despite the questioner agreeing with your first reply. Besides, my question was more directed at the wording of the "buy out," which you admitted "wasn't great." I know, I know, you can't help yourself.

I know what many here think, but I am almost certain both Cora and Bloom's jobs are safe.

Well said, but I have to dismiss this, out of hand (open or half opened.) I can't see why Bloom would willingly create an inferior team by leaving a lot of money on the table.

BINGO, and someone pointed that out, at the time. We did not need him, that game. Another ding on Cora.

I get and said as much, at least twice. You keep going on and on, even after someone agrees with you.

It makes sense, since the contract counted for $10.85M for 2023, and his total outlay will be $15M for 2 years. ($8.3 M for 2023 + $6.7M "buyout" for 2024) $15M- $10.85M= $4.15M

Max. For the hundreth time I totally agree pitching is the main issue. That does not mean defense can't have accounted for 8-12 losses and pitching 30-50. Why are you showing me these numbers? We agree. BTW, there has been a clear change in the way plays are ruled hits vs errors in 2023, so our ERA would be much better had 20-30 hits been called errors, and it might be more than 30.

Did you watch the game? The play Duvall misplayed was a sure third out and not called an error. A runner scored on the misplay and the next guy homered. It should have been 3 unearned runs. If you can't count that one as poor D leading to runs, I can never convince you of anything. Again.... With average defense, I am convinced we'd have won 8-9 more games, minimum. With slightly above average: 9-11. Great D 11-12 or more. Box scores show errors and unearned runs. We've already seen dozens of plays that used to be called errors caalled hits, this year, not to mention all the plays they've never called erros, like an OF'er circling a fly ball and never touching it. Opposing teams had a .309 BAbip vs us, this year. That means about 31% of all balls put in play were hits, while 60% were outs. Since 183 of the 1239 hits were for HRs, 1066 were balls hit for singles, doubles or triples. (That's not counting reach on errors, and we have had 94, some of which did not allow a baserunner to get on base, but did allow him to advance a base or two.) The overly generous scorekeepers already shows our errors,alone led to 50 unearned runs, which in theory led to 5 losses. I'm 100% certain, uncalled errors that were clear misplays led to another 30 runs and 3 losses, and marginal plays not made led to 1-3 more losses. Of course, no game is one or lost on one or even 2 plays, but losses could have been converted to wins with better pitching, better batting, better defense and better baserunning.

Did the Sox misplays on D cost us runs or not? In a tied agme after 9, I'm saying we make those plays, we win. It has nothing to do with how we scored. I already proved we might have lost 5 games from our scrubs in the 7-8 slots of the pen. I have evidence to prove our D has made 60-77 less outs on D than our top contenders in 139 games. I showed evidence. BTW, box scores don't note plays that weren't made that should have been made. I've watched every game. 77 less outs made is being conservative. I did not ever say defense and nothing else, just like you can't say x amount of games were lost on pitching and nothing else or batting and nothing else.

I'm not doubting this, but I am not out of hope for Coramagic, just yet. I'm close as close can be.

Why $4.15? I know, because "it says so." cots shows the tax hit was $10.85M for 2023, so I guess, when he opts out, the remaining $4.15M that makes it $15M is what counts on 2024. Another sunken cost!!!!

I get it and wrote that, but why call it a "buy out?"

I'm not sure why you don't get it. You forget zero is a number. +1 vs -1 is 2 numbers apart. Yes, one game difference, but when you play head to head, its one game up for one team plus one down for the other- a 2 game "SWING!" Two teams- both 70-70 play each other. After the game played one is 71-70 (team A) and the other is 70-71 (team . Yes, team A is up one game. I get it. However, if the other team had one, Team A is 70-71 and Team B is 71-70, and team Bi is one up NOT one down! That's a two game swing based on one game played. Do you deny the differential is not two games based on who wins? There is no way both team will be 71-70 or 70-71 after the game played.

It's getting to the point, if we haven't already reached it, where any loss can be viewed as the final nail.

I guess it's a way to bring down the AAV, but we were so far under in 2023, I don't see why it matters. Does the $6.7M now count on 2024's tax budget line? If yes, it's another "mistake." I realize the deal is structure like this: Turner’s deal is worth $21.7 million if he exercises his player option for 2024. If he doesn’t exercise the option, it is one year at $15 million. Why doesn't the $15M show up on cots tax line for 2023? (Is this why we stayed under by $7-11M?)

That's what it seems, but on cots, it says "buy out," which implies that if they don't want to pay him the player option, then they buy it out at $6.7M. I'm not saying I'm right, but it's seems to be worded wrongly on cots. and it seems like an odd way to write a contract.