moonslav59

GS by 19 year olds per fangraphs: 25 Elvis Luciano TOR 2019 18 Julio Rrias LAD 2016 4 Madison Bumgarner SFG 2009 2 Dylan Bundy BAL 2012

I shoulda put that in green.

We could have added him to our 40 as insurance against some GM gambling that he will become eligible and be able to pitch well enough in the bigs in 2023. The easy solution would be to have DFA'd someone like Ort and replace him on the 26 with Mills or Kelly or have taken our chances by not protecting Hamilton. I am someone who really values the farm, and I'd have been thrilled has he become eligible and be slated to pitch in single A for us, this year. (Rule 5 protected or not and not selected)

They don't have to, but if they feel the need to have a 26th man that can actually play, they may want to trade him for a prospect or more ML ready option. My guess is DD would love to keep him but be able to park him in the minors while on the 40 not 26. As far as I know, that can only happen, if they give something to the Sox to get off the Rule 5 hooks.

With 2 Sotos and a Devers, who need it?

Yes, 10 years ago. He fell off a cliff starting in about 2016.

I went back and edited. I'm not sure if others need editing. Yes, the list seems to value more recent dynasties more highly. I can understand thinking the leagues were smaller, back then, so easier to repeat as champs, but to out the Celtics 13th when they clearly belong at #1 was crazy. Also, calling LeBron a dynasty and not Brady or Reggie or ... is also puzzling.

Ours only cost $90M/5!

Not either. We'd end up paying FA market price for Soto, assuming we extend him, of else why trade? I'd rather we just sign him as a FA, whenever he becomes one. Even then, I'm not sure I'd want us to pay what it takes.

A steal by Bloom, of course. My point was, a "steal" could still occur.

Yes, the Phillies say no, and trade him to a team that can afford to hide him on their 26 or place im on waivers. The Sox hold very little leverage, unless Philly really wants Song on the 40 not the 26. Then we hold some power but not all of it.

I got hooked onto some website named newarena.com that lists the top sports dynasties. I did not agree with their choices, at all. The selected: 1) SF 49'ers '81-'94 (5 championships in 14 years) 2) New England Patriots '01- '18 (6 in 18 yrs) 3) NY Yankees '47-'62 (10 in 15 years) 4) Chicago Bulls '00-'09 (6 in 8 yrs) 5) Pittsburgh Steeler '74-'79 (4 in 6 years) 6) LA Lakers '80-'88 (5 in 9 yrs) 7) Edmonton Oilers '84-'90 ( 5 in 7) 8) SA Spurs '99-'14 (5 in 16) 9) NY Yankees '96-'00 (4 in 5) 10) Boston Celtics '57-'69 (11-13) 11) LA Lakers '00-'02 (3 in 3) 12) Green Bay Packers '61-'67 (5 in 7) 13) Boston Celtics '81-'86 (3 in 6) 14) Oakland A's '72-'74 (3 in 3) 15) NY Islanders '80-'83 (4 in 4) 16) Cincinnati Reds '75-'76 (2 of 2) 17) Montreal Canadians '65-'79 (10 of 15) 18) Detroit Red Wings '97-'08 (4 in 12) 19) LeBron (WTF?) '12-'16 (3 in 5) (Why not Brady, then?) 20) Dallas Cowboys '92-'95 (3 in 4) 21) Chicago Blackhawks '10-'15 (3 in 6) 22) SF Giants '10-'14 (3 in 5) My List (as you can tell, I rely mostly on rings): 1) Celtics (11 in 13) and I'm not even a Celtics fan 2) Yankees (10 in 15) 3) Canadians (10 in 15) 4) Bulls (6 in 8) 5) Packers (5 in 7) 6) Edmonton (5-7) 7) Yankees (4 in 5) 8) Steelers (4 in 6) 9) Islanders (4 in 4) 10) Lakers 5 in 9 11) Patriots 6 in 18 12) 49'ers 5 in 15 13) Spurs 5 in 16 T14) Lakers 3 in 3, A's 3 in 3, Yankees 3 in 3 17) Cowboys 3 in 4 18) Red Sox (4 in 15) Homer pick.

The Sox and Phillies would need to agree on the trade, and my guess is the return would be a single A prospect with some promise.

Good opening sign: IP H ER BB K 2 1 0 1 3 Winckowski 1 0 0 0 1 Murphy 1 0 0 1 1 Mata 1 0 0 0 2 Walter Totals 5 IP 1 Hit 0 ER 2 BB 7 K

The pitchers on the Mariners that kinda fell off a cliff.

Maybe, they make it work, but then why didn't some team not in the playoff hunt select Wikelman or the like from another team? At least he is ready to pitch, right now.

I agree that Mayer, Rafaela and Bleis (and Casas) offer much better chances at greatness than Mata, Walter, Murphy and Crawinck, but I really like Bello, who is younger or close to the same age as Walter, Mata and Murphy. Hell, even Whitlock, Houck and Crawinck are about the same age or younger than Walter. I feel pretty good about Bello, Whitlock and Houck, and I still think at least one from Mata (most likely), Walter, Crawford, Winkowski and Murphy will be a solid plus pitcher for us within the next 2-3 years. I'm not so confident about our down-the-road pitchers like Perales, Wikleman, E R-C and Drohan. Team control years: SP 5 Houck (2 pre-arb + 3 arbs) 4 Whitlock 2-3 Sale 2 Pivetta 1-2 Kluber 1 Paxton RP 3 Schreiber (arbs) 2 Jansen 2 Martin 1-2 Rodriguez 1 Brasier All the rest are pre-arb with 5-6 years of control.

Well, if he gives up a far-away prospect that amounts to squat and Song goes on to greatness, it could still end up being rightly called a steal.

There is a quote from DD that says the Sox felt Song was the best pitcher in the 2019 draft, so obviously he liked him, then, a lot. He's hoping he catches lightning in a bottle. He has a tough road ahead of him trying to make and win the playoffs with a strong and deep 26 man roster while getting this kid enough time to pitch actual and meaningful innings. I don't think pitching batting practice and simulation games is the same, even if it might help that he'll be facing actual major league hitters in practice.

I don't disagree. I have been high on Song for a long time. That being said, I never even mentioned him last fall as a possible protectee, because GMs just don't select players that are not at least near ML ready. DD pulled a fast one, and if it works, it will be a nice coup for him and the Phillies- not quite like the Red Auerbach steal of Larry Bird by drafting him a year early. I will say, it will be very difficult for the Phillies to keep a raw player like Song on the 26 man roster all year, as they fight for a playoff slot and possible ring contention. They will likely trade him or give the Sox something, so they can keep him on the 40 not 26.

I think he can be rehabbing (pitching) in the minors those 15 days, so it's not "inactivity." It's 3 years of minor league progressions compacted into 15 days.

Would you do either?

The highest paid players in MLB history, not including money still to be paid: In $Millions 455 ARod 353 Miggy 342 Pujols 300 Verlander 277 Greinke 268 Kershaw 266 Jeter 265 Sabathia 249 Beltran 248 Price 236 Manny 228 Cano 223 Mauer 221 Felix 220 A Beltre 218 Votto 218 Teixeira 215 Fielder 204 Hamels 198 Scherzer 197 Trout 194 Wright 193 Bonds 192 Lester 191 Howard Largest Single Contracts in MLB History: 426/12 Trout 365/12 Betts 360/9 Judge 350/11 Machado 341/10 Lindor 340/14 Tatis 330/13 Harper 325/13 Stanton (began in 2015) 325/10 Seager 324/9 Cole 314/10 Devers 300/10 Machado (extended before opt out- see above) 300/11 T Turner 280/11 Bogaerts 275/10 ARod (2008-2017) 260/8 Arenado 252/10 ARod (2001-2010: reworked in 2008- see above) 248/8 Miggy (2016) 245/7 Strasburg 245/7 Rendon 240/10 Cano (2014) 240/10 Pujols (2012) 225/10 Votto (2014) 217/7 Price (2016) 215/7 Kershaw (2014) 214/9 Fielder (2012) 212/12 Riley 210/7 Scherzer (2015) 209/14 J Rodriguez 207/6 Greinke 200/6 Correa Other notables: 189/10 Jeter (01) 184/8 Mauer (11) 180/8 Teixeira (09) 180/8 Verlander (13) 175/7 Feliz (13) 167/9 Posey (13) 161/7 Sabathia (09) 160/8 Manny (01) Pre 2001 (Manny & Jeter) 91/7 Piazza

Probably Whitlock, Mayer and Casas would not be enough. Adding Bleis might not even be enough.

Everyone, here would take an eligible Song over Ort. There has never been any love for Ort. TWard should have been protected over Ort and Politi over Brasier or Hamilton. The real question might be, and this is just how I see it: Song vs Hamilton. In hindsight, I'd take Song, but back in November when it looked like he was ineligible and would remain so, I'd have taken Hamilton, Wallace and maybe even Wikelman (who was not selected) over Song. The whole military list exclusion to the 40 man roster thing is a bit confusing.