moonslav59

The only solid option that is looking good, now, was trading for Luis Castillo, but that may have cost us Mayer and or Casas/Rafaela/Bello.

I'm not arguing we should have brought Nate, wacha and Hill back, and replacing them "in kind" does not mean older versions of them would work. I don't think we needed to sign 3 aces. I did think we needed to add one solid #1 or 2 or maybe 2 solid #2/3 types. I thought Kluber might be a good #3 with possible #2 promise.

Signing short term players does not necessarily mean there is no commitment to 2024 and beyond, but I get your point. The Story signing was an attempt at longer term stability, but has been the opposite, so far. The Devers & Yoshida signings and the Whitlock extensions along with Story is a pretty short list- agreed.

Devers is just now entering prime. In theory, it makes sense adding players around him should have just begun and continue through the next 2-4 seasons. We spent a lot, this winter. Next winter's spending budget will tell me a lot.

Not many of the ones that got the most money are doing great.

No doubt. Why we spent over 90% of all funds on everything but the rotation is gross negligence.

One point in favor of the position that Price was a market setting deal, was that it was not matched for 3 seasons.

I'm just giving the likely reason. I was for signing Andrus as a bridge. He was still available, even after we found out about the Story injury. I also wanted us to extend Bogey at a reasonable amount. I do think neglecting the rotation was a much bigger mistake.

We lost Nate, Wacha and Hill. I get the Sale/Paxton hope. I get the Bello hope. I get the Whitlock & Houck hopes, but thinking Kluber was enough was just plain wrong. I hate the idea of trying to improve the rotation from the middle or bottom. I always have. We haven't tried to add to the top since the Sale trade. Some might argue Nate, but he was not an ace when we traded for him.

The Price signing was not a clear "market setter," but $210M/7 was the largest contract given to a SP'er up to that time and even over the next 3 winters, so I do think a case can be made that it was just barely one.

Fair enough, but I think what jacko has said about the .500 Sox is overblown.

The other option was a trade like Castillo's. That's not too appealing, either, but at some point, like with Price and sale, we have to bite the bullet.

We also signed more 2 year deals than one. New signings/Per season 2024: 29 Devers 19 Yoshida 16 Jansen 11 Turner 10 Martin That's not chump change. New For 2023: 20 Story (March '22) 18 Devers 16 Jansen 16 Yoshida 10 Kike 10 Kluber 8 Turner 8 Martin 7 Duvall 4 Paxton I ask, how many teams created new spending more than this? 4-7? This is NOT small market spending.

There is no ifs, ands or buts about us committing $650M since March 2022.

Laugh all you want, but please explain how #14 is "small market." We spend about as much as the bottom 3 teams combined. We spend more than any two of the bottom 6 teams combined. We spend 50% more than any of the bottom 10 teams. Argue mid tier, if you wish. Hahahahahaha.

The Story injury put the kibosh on the SS position, and with Mayer in the wings, I can understand why they did not sign a SS longterm. The rotation neglect is puzzling.

As much as I'd love to get Ohtani, I'm not so sure it would be a great thing for the team's long term success, if the plan is to reset every 2-3 years. The Ohtani + Devers deals will greatly impair our ability to stock the rest of the team with significant or moderate signings. We would be fully dependant on our farm. If the player salary budget is near $210M, and Ohtani+Devers = $70M, that is a huge percentage on just 2 guys. I think we will choose to spread the spending around more, especially in light of the Devers extension. Just my opinion.

Agree that we "could" sign him, if henry wanted to do so, but I doubt we do. I just hope we find a way to add an ace (or two.) We need, at minimum, two solid #2's.

If Yoshida and Ohtani were best friends, maybe we'd have a shot, but I don't see it. Maybe we focus on Urias or Nola.

They'd still be in 4th place, but your point is well-taken. However, in just one day, that could fall to 3 games (or rise to 17 games.)

One main reason we have dropped from the top 5, is the massive increases by the Mets and Padres. I'm not sure the new bar set by those two teams should be used to say henry has gone cheap. He did go cheap, starting in 2019, but that is not something new. What's new is going 3 years being cheap.

I think we will be top 5 in 2024, and stay top 5-7 for a while. We may reset after 2-3 years, but if we are close to a ring in year 3-4, maybe not. It's just my opinion, but cycling big spending has been henry's m.o., so I'm not sure why so many are so convinced, he's turned into a mizer for life.

Where have I ever come close to even implying this is a "win?" I'm just pointing out, that since the Story signing, we are not acting like a small market team. All big market teams, except the Mets, re-set the tax every 2-3 years. We got so far behind, starting in 2019 (not 2020), that we were acting like a small market team. We aren't anymore. That position certainly has merit, whether you agree or not. And, for your information, no I don't think it's a "win." I expected us to spend up to the line, this year and more on the rotation. I realize skyrocketing salaries affected who I thought we might be able to sign for the winter budget we had, but we still focused too much of what we did spend on offense and not pitching & defense. I like most of the deals we made, but the overall focus was off. How is keeping Devers letting "every franchise player leave?" We lost 2 of 3 and signed Story, instead of Bogey. Again, YES we acted like a small market team from 2019 to the Story signing. That's about 3 calendar years. That's the longest stretch Henry did this, but he did have 1-2 year stretches before. We are spending bigly, again. You can ignore the Devers signing, if you want, but it is real.

The short answer: they are not thinking 2023 is "the year." The bigger question is about why didn't they reset, last year. If the plan is to go big starting in 2024, it makes sense to have 2024 be the year one lux tax hit. I was hoping we'd "go for it," this year, but it seems like that idea keeps being pushed back, or was secretly always 2024 or later.

He committed to spending $650M starting with the Story signing. That is huge. That is way more than 2/3 of the teams. It is more than probably 24-25 teams. YES!