moonslav59

He could have been right, but gotten bad results. I coulda been wrong and maybe got lucky. There is very little I disagree with Cora on, and what little there is is mostly theoretical and not specific instances of disagreement.

Different sites range from 12th to 14th, from what I've found.

How long should it take a team to reach sustained winning after going from the 2017 Devers call up to today with just Houck being a major help? One can't expect a farm to be contributing in just 3 years, especially when drafting HS players, every year. Add to that, the first 2 years of budget cuts and limits. I agree, they have not been "transparent" about this being a rebuild or a 4-5 year plan, but it seems obvious it has been and maybe still is, this year. I do think they felt we'd be good enough to compete for the playoffs in 2022 and 2023, but they know these were/are not ring teams. We did/do, too. If you want to count 2020 as a year, 2024 will be year 5. The prospects added in 2020: Yorke and Jordan and 2021: Mayer may not be impact players by then. Bleis (2021) is too far away. We have some DD guys looking to help, and the farm outlook does look better than just Houck and Dalbec over 5 years, but I'm not sure 2024 is looking like "the year," either. I hate thinking like this.

With the way we spent, this winter, and with the re-set likely, I doubt we go 2 straight, unless 10 other teams go nutty. According to Steve the Ump, the Sox have been... 3rd 2020 (although we slashed the budget) 3rd 2021 (although we still did not replace all the money off the books from '20- '21) 6th 2022 (despite the Story signings) 13th 2023

Jansen has been the most consistently good closer since Mo. Story has a name in Colorado. Turner in LA... oh, maybe that's the other Turner. Duvall led the league in RBIs, 2 years ago, but apparently RBIs matter when it's Renfroe, only.

Our #5 prospect that was supposed to be ML ready, this year. He was ranked 3rd before his injury.

Kluber's FIP reamined amazingly consistent, all year. 3.54 after game one. down to 3.29 by game 17. as high as 3.75 game 6. Game 12 to the end: 4.57 ERA but 3.55 FIP. His .742 OPSA was not helped by his .324 BAbip Small sample size, but his last 3 starts: 3.38 ERA 3.30 FIP despite a .359 BAbip

I'm usually not one to bash a manager over one specific move, since I don't have access to all the info he has/had. I'm just talking in generalities. I think we have left some SP'ers in a few too many batters, after they seem to have clearly "lost it." I get the fact that there are plenty of anecdotal instances where a pitcher regained his composure and went on to eat some innings and help keep us in game, where he struggled early, but this team can score a lot of runs, and has shown it can comeback and win games 10-9. I'm thinking we should have yanked a starter a little earlier a couple or maybe three or four times, this year, and it's not just hindsight thinking, on my part. I felt it at the time, too. (I'm not pretending to know more than Cora. I still think he is a fine manager.) Game 1: understandable. Kluber looked okay until the 4th: BB, HR, lineout, liner 2B, liner 1B, BB and then yanked. (Kelly let two of Kluber's 5 runs score.) Game 4: I have issues. Crawford was in trouble every inning, but it took 2 HRs in the 4th to yank him- even then, he waited for him to get 2 more outs. (4IP 8 hits & 2 BB and 7 runs) Game 11: No issues, despite Whitlock going 5 IP with 8 hits & 0BB (5 ERs). He did not look all that badly until 2 outs in the 5th with those back-to-back solo blasts. Game 12: Questionable. After Sale let up 3 in the first, he sort of looked okay. A couple line drive hits in the 4th and a bunt single might have been enough to yank him before Franco's deep 2B, but I can live with that choice. Game 13: hard to have issues, when many felt they yanked Kluber, too early, and Bleier allowed a mess of IR's to score. Game 15: is an example of not yanking a guy too early. Pivetta let up 4 in the first, but then settled down, nicely, until the 4th, where Cora did yank him after 3 straight hits. (Ort let one of Pivetta's 6 runs score.) Game 17: Close call. Bello did not last long, but it was clear he did not have it from the second batter on. 2.2 IP 8 hits, 1 BB, 5 ERs Game 19: Another Kluber stinker. (5 IP, 6hits, 2 BBs and 7 ERs) He did not allow any ERs in his last 2 IP, so it's hard to say he should have been yanked early, but 7 ERs in 3 IP? Game 24: I'd have yanked sale, earlier. (5 IP, 9 hits, 1 BB 5 Ers and NO K's) There could have been more runs, but a timely DP helped. I like Cora. I'm not really complaining, but I'd have done a couple things differently. Maybe we would have done worse had we followed my suggestions.

The Sale trade worked. (It was the extension that is killing us.) The Nate trade worked. He was a big part of the playoff victories. (The extension was meh.) The Price signing was a gross overpay and 2-3 years too long. We all knew it, but how else do you get an ace, when you can't produce one from within the system? (Yes, the easy answer is to improve your system, but that solution has been elusive.) The Beckett trade worked. The Schilling trade worked. The Pedro trade more than worked. The Lackey signing was so-so, but we needed a solid #2 for that ring year.

My point was directed at those who called us a small market team. My other point was about recent spending, which matters, too. We have started spending more since the Story signing. The fact that we had gotten so far behind, beforehand, does not change that fact, either. Wanting to re-set makes some sense, so that alone keeps us from being a top ___ spending team.

We should be able to pitch Wink and Crawford 2-3 innings every 3-4 days. Guys like Schreiber and Bleier can go more than 1 from time to time. We have an 8 man pen, which was not something many teams had before the roster expansion to 26. Our starters, as badly as they have done, are 3rd in IP. We should be able to yank a couple starters earlier than we want.

I still think our rotation might get their act together and find the middle of the pack, but my hopes are dimming with the passing of time.

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.