moonslav59

Let's assume the Astros are the model we are trying to get to. Remember, they tanked for several years to jump start their farm build up. Can we really expect we can do that as quickly and thoroughly as they did? Yes, they traded for Yordan Alvarez, while we traded for Winckowski, but it took them time, and they did not deviate from the plan of not trading farm pieces for immediate help all along. Note, they did not trade Correa or Springer or Verlander or many other key pieces, who left via free agency. Nobody in Houston is bitching a bout them not trading those stars to get something instead of nothing. Winning shuts up almost all critics. To me, Boston fans don't have the patience to wait that long, and I'm not blaming them, but the reality is, we would not have accepted a total tear down and restart that may have included 2-3 total tank years. We tried to win while rebuilding, and that is not an easy thing to do, when yo are starting with a farm that produced just Houck in 5 years and an owner than aimed to cut the budget massively in 2020 and then add winter spending money sparingly or to levels that essentially just replaced departing salaries. Had we had a decent farm in 2019-2020, our chances of winning in 2021 and 2022 would have greatly increased. When you don't lose badly, you don't get top draft picks or IFA bonus pools. The poor finish in 2020 demonstrates just how much losing can boost the farm (Mayer draft pick and Bleis IFA addition).

Of course it is. Had Judge taken the bigger deal in SF, Yankee fans would be saying the same thing. Like it or not, money is the reason Betts and Bogey are gone and Devers might be right behind them. Greed is a powerful thing.

Conforto to Giants at $36M/2. Taylor Rogers to Giants at $33M/3. Not quite the Correa money.

While it is true, we don't get better bringing Devers back, we do get a lot worse, losing him. We can resign him, if JH wants to do so. I don't think his new contract would cripple the budget for years to come. THe Sox may appear "rudderless," but the budget has been trimmed of larger contracts through attrition and should be in great shape, once Sale's contract ends in 2024. If we reset, this year, like it looks like we can, even if we extend Devers starting now or in '24, the cycle of spending more in 2024 and 2025 looks set up, nicely. The build-up of the farm has not been rudderless. The FO has shown amazing discipline by not trading any prospect ranked higher than Aldo Ramirez, who topped out at #8. That's a major shift from the first 3 years of DD's era. Not only have we avoided trading top prospects, we've actively added over a dozen prospects under Bloom. Granted none, except Whitlock (not by trade) have shown signs of greatness, but some may end up taking over some sort of role on the big team (Wink, Wong, German, EValdez, Abreu, Ferguson, Rosier, de la Rosa) and Kelly (not by trade.) The build up of the bottom of the 40 man roster has been steady and IMO, is complete. It hasn't really translated into consistent winning, but having a strong farm, which we just recently reached, and strong roster depth is part of the foundation of consistent winning. Now, the hard part: adding quality at the top of the roster while playing the 3 year reset game and trying to pay our homegrown stars what this insane new market demands. I think their plan is pretty clear, but it is for the long term.

I don't either, but like Watson- someone will take Bauer.

After a five-month review of pitcher Trevor Bauer’s criminal case, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office announced Tuesday that it would not seek charges against the Dodgers pitcher. “After a thorough review of all the available evidence, including the civil restraining order proceedings, witness statements and the physical evidence, the People are unable to prove the relevant charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” reads the D.A. office’s comments in its declination. -Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianred/2022/02/08/trevor-bauers-criminal-case-concludes-with-no-charges-filed-against-him-mlb-investigation-still-open/?sh=364ab0672bee

With inflation $350M is less than what Betts got and is pretty close to what we offered Betts. I'm not that optimistic we extend Devers, but I still think we have a real shot at it.

One year SSs and BTV value: 9.6 R Ahmed 5.9 M Rojas 1.5 A Mondesi 0.8 Kiner-Falefa 0.0 JT Riddle -0.7 B Crawford -5.9 N Ahmed FA Andrus Iggy Gregorius Simmons Segura (2B)

There has to be several decent SSs with one year of team control on a team going nowhere.

Bauer suspension reduce to time served. Since we are the new Oakland Raiders: Devers for Bauer.

The issue with signing Andrus is likely he wants 2-3 or more years. Wasn't Rojas talked about, at one point? I'd prefer him over Wendle, and why not get a SP'er from the Marlins, while we're at it.

Sox apparently has trade talks with the Marlins on Joey Wendel. (Seems the plan is to play Story at SS rather than acquire a short term SS and keep Story at 2B) He's pretty good on D at 2B and 3B, and I guess he's viewed as a bounce back offensive choice. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/red-sox-marlins-have-discussed-joey-wendle-in-trade-talks.html

We can argue till the cows come home about the Sox having or needing to have a budget, but the reality is they do, and even during the years they go over, it seems there is an upper limit. We may not recognize "a plan" or even some obvious direction the team is heading towards, but there does seem to be some hints that lead me to believe... 1. We will never go over the tax line 3 years in row. (We never have.) 2. We are in a farm-building mode and have been since 2019. (We have not traded any top prospects since before 2019, and have traded for many, since then.) 3. We seem to be averse to signing any large and long contracts or extensions. (The Story $140M/6 signing and Sale $145M/5 extension are the largest since Price in 2015.) 4. As of now, the plan seems to be to build up the 40 man roster in a balanced and deeper way- not top heavy. We can disagree with these strategies or plans, or even whether my interpretations of our plan is correct or not, or incomplete, but it seems to me, we are have been in this mode, since even before DD left. If you look at the bottom 10 and 20 of the 40 moan rosters from 2020 to 2021 to 2022 to now, I'm pretty sure we'd all agree those groupings have greatly improved, even if it hasn't helped us win more consistently or more often. To me, it's not a bad plan to build up roster depth and farm potential, at the same time, perhaps in preparation for a FA spending splurge when the reset tax cycle turns in our favor. That could be 2024, but we've been known to stay under the tax line for 2 and even 3 straight years, before. The upcoming top prospects and recent grads seem to be times, just right, for 2024 or 2025. Whether we "splurge" or not remains to be seen. I was thinking (hoping) that time might be this winter, even with a reset, but it looks like we stayed in the "spread the wealth" mode on FA signings.

... and no half-Price attached.

It doesn't seem like the return packages are what they used to be years ago for a year of a guy like Devers or even 2 months, but we should get something significant. I hope we signing him, but if we don't, he needs to be traded before opening day. Who knows what the highest bidder offers, but it should help that a few teams should be heavy into getting him. If a team like the Giants don't have the right return package, maybe a 3rd team gets involved.

Certainly, a possibility. Giving a team a window for the rights to negotiate an extension could up the return, as well.

I get it, and don't disagree, but if we spend $50M more, and 5 other teams spend $40M more, 10 teams $30M more and 5 teams $20M more, I'm not sure we'd be much better off. IMO, JH will spend big, again. Just not this winter. The plan may be to wait until the younger players get established and are starting to mature before he pounces bigtime. It's just speculation, and if correct, I'm not sure when "that time" will be. He has spent in cycles, before.

I'm think some team would want Downs and would grab him off waivers, if he's not traded, first. Hosmer is gone. (I's have traded Dalbec.)

I guess it comes down to the age.

Again, I've said I wish he would spend more and "should," but so should every team other than the ones that already are, and if that happened, we might be even worse off. I'm not understanding why every owner not already spending more should not, but the Sox owner should. Being the third most valuable does not make much of a difference to me. Many team owners who are raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, some on revenue sharing spend zero on free agents. To me, in the grand scheme of things, what they are doing is much worse than JH deciding to be the 6th or 7th highest spending team vs 3rd or 4th among madmen spenders. Yes, we should spend more, but so should 24 other teams to varying degrees, and most by a higher percentage increase in budget than what we are asking JH to do.

"LOWBALL! LOWBALL!" If he settles for that little, it would remind me of the VTek situation on his last contract. Nate shoulds taken the QO.

If we offer $350M/10 or $375M/12 and he walks away, we'll still never hear the end of "we could have gotten him for cheaper had we offered it a year or ___ ago." Not that this point does not have merit, but if we offer him something like that and he walks, I'm not sure what more could be done? $400M/13 or 14? (Would MLB disallow a contract that long?)

When is the time frame up on trading Hosmer and Downs?

My eyes are worse than I thought. Signing him would not have surprised me.

Guess who signed Wil Myers to $7.5M/1 with incentives and a mutual option?