moonslav59

I've been talking Polanco and Suarez all winter long.

When we signed Price, I thought "DAMN! That's a huge overpay, but wow, we got one of the best pitchers in MLB. Okay with me." A few years later we called him "half-Priced."

Ryan Weathers to NYY for 4 prospects.

BTV accepts this. Do you? Harrison, Wong & DHam for G Torres (1yr) Jake Rogers (1 yr catcher) and Comp BAL pick Rd B

Bichette just does not seem like "THE GUY" to go mega long and mega large on. Glad he's going to the NL. Looks like Tucker is close to going to the Mets at $50M AAV

I'm so glad someone else got Arenado. I'd prefer him to DHam, but only if STL pais $40M out of $42M, or took Masa and his $36M owed.

All we know for sure is that our offer wasn't good enough for some reason or reasons. It looks like it was less money, but still a big overpay. It looks like it was for the same amount of years- one to two too many. It's looks like it had more or longer deferred money, that may have been a factor. It looks like we would not include a no trade clause, which may have been a factor. We made an offer, and I doubt any further discussion would have caused Brez, JH & Co to give $10M more, or shorter or less deferred money or give in on the no trade clause. The history is we just don't ever come back with anything substantially more than the last or second to last offer given. I thought $165M/5 was way more than fair, both in terms of money and years. That was already too much and too long, but had he said yes, I'd have been fine with it and accepted that you have to overpay to get what you need. That doesn't mean there is no stopping point, and since I feel $165M was already past the stopping point, I'm not pissed off he's a Cub, now. That's not saying I feel the same about every FA negotiation we've had and will have. Of the one's I've seen signed so far, I think I'd have give slightly more for Alonso, but that was close to Breggie overpay limits, IMO. I'd have given more to Polanco, for sure, but with fingers and toes crossed and contorted. I'm not sure about $65M/4 for Okamoto, but if we end up with nothing, I'd look back and wonder more. I kinda liked the idea of Merrill Kelly on a 2 year deal, but I think he wanted back to AZ ($20M x 2.) I see Suarez as an option- not Bichette. I see trades as an option and really like Paredes. BTV says he's worth 12, but I think he's more like 30. They say Duran is worth 46, but I'm thinking maybe 40. I'd trade Duran (46) for Paredes (12) plus Brian King (7) but BTV rejects it. They called Duran for Paredes, King and Janek (9 a catcher prospect) a "major overpay" but accepted it.

Some felt that wasn't really Bloom's doing, anyway.

I'd offer Duran for Paredes, King & Janek. (Maybe sub Sousa for King. Maybe drop Janek.)

I'm so glad someone else got Arenado. I'd prefer him to DHam, but only if STL pais $40M out of $42M, or took Masa and his $36M owed.

Agreed, but unlike the other top 3 RP'ers in the Sox pen, SD does not have good splits, career: .555 v RHB .751 v LHB I think we can just have Crawford, Harrison and or Sandoval move to the pen and fill this need, especially if it means we have more resources to spend on a big bat and 3Bman, or even a SP2.

Well said. Now, "Opts out" are bad words.

The Price and JD signings were huge, and both did well to very well as long as DD was with BOS. No doubt there was a shift. We went from letting Lester bolt, because he was over 30, but then paid Price way more than anyone else to that date. He made more than Pablo + HRam in total dollars. The thing is, that was about it. We seem to remember that he spent money, left and right on free agents. He really did not. I know Nate counts as a FA signing, although I view it as an extension, but even counting it as a FA signing during his last year w BOS, Nate was just the 11th highest paid FA in Sox history. Guess who the next ranked one is? Mitch Moreland at #34 at just $13M/2 in 2018! (These FA signings don't count Dice-K, Rusney or Moncada.) Price was and still is #1 in total dollars given. JD was 6th. DD's main reason for success, IMO, was his trade success, and some of his additions were high-salaried. The guy rarely missed on his trades, and when he did, they were minor misses like Thornburg and some other RP'er I forgot. His budgets got high due in large part to players from trades and rising arb costs.

Some rigidity has changed since the Devers extension. Many said they only extended him because of the backlash after losing Betts and Bogey. True or not, that should not matter. We did it, and that marked a change. The Devers "Dump" as I call it, and it was more than just a salary dump- I know that- kinda undid that, but they did sign a player to $313M/10, when the previous record was $217M/7 (for Price, who we also dumped... hmmm...) Another seemingly rigid undoing cam with long extensions given to pre-arb young players, so maybe we would not see so many stars bolting to free agency in their prime year. To me, this is a huge change in philosophy that has brightened our future and long term future. That brightness does not shine away some of our dark philosophies and choices made, and I'm not so sure some of our choices have been as bad as they seem to be everytime a FA "of interest" is grossly overpaid by some other team. We need only look at our largest contracts given out to see how many have been clear success stories. I hate seeing us lose Bregman. I think he made a big and positive difference to the team. He helped other players get better and improve their approaches to the game. In some ways, that's priceless. I get it. We have a big hole to fill, and we still haven't filled the Devers canyon. I think Contreras fills the loss of Bregman's bat, but we still need a 3Bman and the power bat we lost with Devers. I realize winning teams can be constructed in various way, but our ring seasons have pretty much followed two major events: 1. Our top SP'ers stayed relatively healthy, and we had two aces or near ace types. 2004: Pedro & Schilling 2007: Beckett & Schilling 2013: Lester & Lackey 2018: Sale & Price (+ Porcello coming off a Cy Young win) 2. We had 2 big power bats or several 25+ HR types. 2004: Manny 43/ Papi 41 (4 others w 17+) 2007: Papi 35/ Manny 20 + Lowell 21 2013: Papi 30/ Napoli 23 + Middy 17 in 94 gms (Okay, this is pushing it) 2018: JD 43/Betts 32 (Bogey 23 + Devers 21) Looking at 2016, we might have 1 ace and 1 near ace, but we have no power bat projected to hit 30+ HRs. We may end up with nobody at 25+.

And not only 2 (or 3) years vs 5, but also $23-27M vs whatever you want to call what Breggie got ($32-35M.) I hate the big drop in D. I hate the loss of Bregman's clubhouse leadership and influence on young players, but how high is too high? If CHC paid him $200M/5, we'd have people saying why not $205M/5 and "it's just $1M more a year!"

I'm glad we made the playoffs, and if I smoked em, I'd have lit a fat one the day we made the playoffs. It's not enough to say we did better last winter than the 5 or 6 before. I'm 100% in on the idea that the moment is now. The window is wide open. I'm not going to ignore good changes started last winter. I hope they continue. I'm not optimistic, right now.

I understand posters don't want to count that extension, as well as Campbell's and Anthony's as "spending more," not the somewhat pricey contracts for Gray and Contreras, but it is spending. For years, perhaps the biggest beef by posters has been letting our top young talent bolt via free agency. I keep hearing I am "ignoring" this and that, which I don't think I am. I fully realize we are spending way less than our revenue ranking, but I could easily say that some might be ignoring the enormously beneficial shift we've made towards keeping the best of our best: Crochet, Chapman, Anthony, Rafaela, Bello and hopefully we can soon view Campbell as a great extension. Saying this does not erase the harmful philosophies this FO has adhered to- like not giving no trade clauses and not going the "extra" extra mile to sign FAs we really know we need. I'm not happy with that either, but within the context of other factors, I still think we are very close to being a top contender. IMO, we still have time and options this winter to get there. Am I confident we do it? HELL NO! I have no idea what these guys will do. We know more about what they won't do with every passing day, and that sucks, for sure. I wish we had come closer to getting Alonso than we did. I can't bring myself to say or think I wish we'd given Breggie $180M/5. That's not the same as saying I'm glad he's gone. We are clearly worse without him. That being said, I'm not going to ignore what I think is a fact: had we signed Breggie for 5 years, we'd have been bigger misers for the next 5 years, and that would hurt- maybe more than how much Breggie helps- maybe not. There is a trade off. People can scream all they want, "Well, JH can and should just spend more," but I'm not going to believe he will just so I'm happy for the moment we sign Bregman. I'm trying see the trade-off we'd have made. I'm fine if others don't see it like I do. I know I often view things way differently than others, and not just on sports issues.

Yes, I was responding to GG's post about us never signing big FAs, and gave examples of last winter's two to three signings. Then I got hell for pointing out that we do win some bidding wars. It's not refuting your claim.

Yes, and I'm sure the Sox ownership group studies what their customers want and need and find the price and production points that keep them just happy enough to keep "buying their product." Maybe a good analysis is the cigarette companies. They have customers that are hooked for life, no matter what you do.

Not sure why this matters, but I'm sure some beer companies make way more money and profits than others based on similar revenue vs expenditure ratios.

The AAV is one thing, and that does seem to matter a lot to JH & Co. Bute he's making $175M and playing 5 seasons. That matters, too. It's not much more than Alonso, but we missed on Alonso by a long shot.

I never got the impression they were sure to land Bregman.

I know people are bummed out. We lost on a FA once more, but that offer was very fair. It shows they will go 5 years for someone over 30. I'm sure some will think they never intended to win the bidding and this was all for show. Still, if we never win a bidding war on a top quality player, it won't ever seem to matter. We've also been wrong on some of our most recent larger signings, and that hasn't/doesn't help. Had Buehler done great, maybe we wouldn't be so sour on shorter term deals. Had Bregman sucked and not opted out, we'd be bummed we signed him for 3 years.

Making that point does not refute the other. I responded to the point about not signing any top FA, every year. I'm not arguing against the spending vs Revenue point made by saying the truth.

Yup. That is a great point. I'm not defending stingy. I'm just not going to say we don't sign anyone "every year."