moonslav59

He loves keeping this thread near the top.

I get that, and those 2 games showed a further drop from the 6 game drop, earlier. The fac t is, his velo dropped in that 6 game sample size, too. A clear drop. While I don't share jacko's philosophy that once velo drops it can never come back, that drop is very concerning to me, especially at his age.

I had reason to say you hated Cora, but you never said it, so I apologized. It wasn't a typo error when you said I "don't like Bogey or Bogey's defense, either." That statement clearly says and means you think I don't like Bogey. I brought it up, and instead of you saying you made a mistake, you doubled and tripled down on that statement as not meaning what it clearly means. It was not a typo, so you are talking about another issue, not the one you are responding to, now. That is "how flawed your logic is." You are seriously reaching comparing anything like not wanting to sign Bogey or devers to hating them vs you saying you would not hire Cora back to thinking you hate him- "big difference", as you would say. There were also many other statements made against Cora than you have ever made against Bogey or Devers, in fact I do not remember you ever saying negative things about those two, so stop your constant strawman arguments. BTW, you could still say you mistakenly said I do not like Bogey, but you won't. It was totally fair saying I don't like his D, al2though I have praised his improvement, this season, but I have never said I dislike Bogey. In fact, I have said I'd offer him a contract very similar to your suggested offer, so if I dislike him, it's b/y no more than you do. Fess up! Come on, man!

Ina ll fairness to jacko, the 6 starts after the first time on the IL showed a drop in velo, too. https://www.fangraphs.com/players/nathan-eovaldi/9132/graphs?pitchgraphs=true&statArr=&legend=1&split=base&time=daily&start=2020&end=2022&rtype=mult&gt1=15&dStatArray=FA&ymin=&ymax=

MLBTR predicted a $34/2 contract on the open market. Maybe, something like that, or a $43M/3 deal might be the offer..

You have never once admitted to a mistAke in misinterpreting others' posts, so it's not straw grasping. You have also been called out, several times on statements you have made and their meanings, and instead of admitting you misworded or stated something, you double and triple down, so once again, COME ON, MAN!. The famous example was when you said I "don't like Bogey, and Bogey's defense, either," and never backed down from the obvious meaning of you saying I don't like Bogey. You tripled down on that meaning only that I don't like Bogey's defense. It's no different from me perhaps wrongly interpreting you "hate Cora," when you never really said that word for word. I admitted I was wrong for saying you hated him. You never admitted you were wrong for saying I don't like Bogey. That's the BIG DIFFERENCE, you never get and never will. And, that's just one example.

It will be easier for 3-4 teams from the AL East to make the playoffs than before, so that should improve our odds, but if Seattle makes some moves to improve, I'm not sure it helps.

Since the 2014-2015 season, here are the college playoff appearances and championship numbers by school in these 8 seasons: Appearances / Team (Championships) 7 Alabama (3) 6 Clemson (2) 4 Ohio St. (1) 3 Oklahoma (0) 2 Georgia (1) 2 Notre Dame (0) 1 LSU (1) 1 Michigan (0), Mich St (0), Cincy (0), Wash (0), Oregon (0) So, 8 seasons and 32 slots 12 different teams 17 of 32 slots filled by just 3 teams (Ala, Clem, OSU) 24 of 32 (75%) slots filled by 6 teams 4 teams with all 8 championships (2 teams with 5 of 8)

They never seem to have a bad farm. I think that is why they feel they can absorb the penalties on the drafts and IFA bonus money. The money penalties seem incidental.

Exactly. I don't like 10-12 year deals, either, but 26 year olds are different than 30 year olds. It was the same with the 26 year old Mookie.

Oh. I didn't realize you never misinterpret other posters' statements and positions. Sorry.

Okay. New question, if you are okay with Bogey for 6 years (ages 30-35), why not Devers for 10 years (26-35)? They both end at age 35, but the Devers deal covers way more years in prime or near prime. I get the risk, that if Devers declines for some reason, we are stuck with 4 more years, but to me, those prime years outweigh that slight risk of Devers sucking from age 32-35. It would also mean we lose Devers during his prime, while Bogey is nearly done with his prime years.

One poster, I will keep nameless, made a mistake long ago, admitted it several times, but another (nameless) poster keeps bringing it up over and over and over and ...

I thought you said you'd give Bogey 8 years. My bad. My point was that Devers for 10 years gets way more prime years than Bogey for 8 (or even Bogey for 6.) Sorry for messing up your position.

It's the same amount of money $225/8 vs $225/10, and it's not like Devers will be toast in years 9-10.

I don't really like the word "cares" when it comes to the budget. I could care less how much money JH makes. To me, it just is what it is. The budget is something that is not hypothetical, despite not always being clearly defined or known by the average Joe Sox fan. Our pattern has been pretty consistent. We hardly ever go way over the tax line and nev er go 3 years over, in a row. Of course, that could change, especially if a strong window is present, but is it now?

You said it better than I, but if we want to reset, this winter, I'd rather see us seek longer term deals at moderate costs, or a couple bigger deals for long term on players not already 31 or 32. My guess is, we will try very hard not to sign anyone with a QO, so maybe Correa is "that guy." He just turned 28. No QO comp pick. We need a SS. He would be a major help to 2023 but also the extended beyond. Then, sign a few shorter term deals to help us reset, but more importantly open up budget space for next winter, when we can and will go over the tax line. I'm not sure what next year's FA class looks like, but this one is about as bad as I have seen in a while. Maybe we add Senga and a bunch of RP'ers along with Correa and maybe Gallo. That might set us up nicely for 2024 while making us better in 2023, too.

Too much, IMO. The pluses are: 1. It's just a 1 year deal (which means more if we plan on re-setting in 2024 not 2023.) 2. He will not cost us a comp pick like some top SP'ers on the market would cost. 3. He does have an injury history, but his arm does not have 2,000 IP'd on it, like Porcello had at age 32. I hope he says no, but it may not be a bad thing, if he says yes.

Wacha would be an upgrade over Winckowski/Crawford, who are slotted as our 5th starter, right now. I think I saw his estimated cost would be $12M x 2. I do not like trying to fix the rotation by improving the 4/5 slots. I want us to trade for an 1/2 slot SP'er, soon. I'm just saying, our rotation looks so weak, we can "upgrade" maybe 2-3 slots without spending $20M AAV on each guy.

I'm okay with the QO, but I'm leaning towards wanting him to say no. We can sign another pitcher and get the draft pick.

We can afford signing 2-3 big splash players, but then what? We can wish and explain with great logic how JH can just spend more and more, but until he does, I'm assuming we keep re-setting every 2-3 years and have some 2-3 year stretches where we don't go over, at all. That has been the pattern. With penalties getting worse for multiple years over the tax line, I'm not seeing a change in that pattern. I don't want another last place team in 2023 or ever again, but I don't want us to sacrifice a big chunk of the extended future for 2023, either. I don't think this looks like the FA market worth a major "pounce." Just because we have high needs, doesn't mean we need to grossly overpay for a questionable FAs. I think we have enough money to make the 2023 competitive, but maybe not a top contender, unless we spend over the tax line and or decide now is the time to trade a top prospect of two for something impactful- like an ace. That seems to be what our history has shown brings us rings (Pedro & Schill in '04, Beckett in '07 and Porcello in 2018.) The Lackey and Price signings were big parts of winning, too, but I don't see Rodon or deGrom like I viewed Price. I think we will make a big trade for a SP'er, but we may wait one more year. IMO, the 2024 outlook is better than 2023, especially if we re-set in 2023. For argument's sake, let's say we decide to become top contenders in 2023, without going over the tax line or significantly hurting the longer term outlook too much. We could: 1) Make a big trade for a young SP'er with a 1 or 2 slot outlook by trading Mayer or Bleis plus Wikelman or Walter of 3 from Rafaela, Yorke, Mata, Wikelman & Walter. While that would likely "hurt" the long term future, if the pitcher we get had 4+ years of control, that helps the long term, too. 2) By not needing to spend big money on an ace, we can use the remaining winter budget space- maybe $90M to make high impact additions at the 4-6 slots listed here: SS: Turner, Correa, Bogey, Swanson RF: Judge or Nimmo (maybe settle on Gallo or trade for a RF'er) SP: (non ace): Nate, Wacha, Bassitt and a select few others RP: add 2 of the best 6 out there or 3 of the best 10m or 12 If there is money left over, maybe from signing Gallo for RF, instead of Nimmo, we can get a DH like Brantley or upgrade the catcher position. It is possible, but it is going to take targeted precision moves that almost all turn out well. If too many fail, we will, again, fall back on wishing for Sale and or Paxton to shine, Barnes and Taylor to return to form, or some major production from players like Schreiber, Kike, Dugo, Bello, Kelly, German, Mata, Crawford, McGuire, Dalbec, Arroyo, Refsnyder and a few others like E Valdez, Wong, Walter, Winckowski and a handful of others. It is doable. I'm very optimistic we can be way better than 2022 without re-setting or trading away a major part of our farm.

So, you'd rather pay a player 8 years from age 30-37 (may 1-2 years of prime) than a player for 10 years from age 26-35 (maybe 5-6 of prime)?

Again, you don't answer the question given. How about this: Devers for $240/10 or $240M/12

Only #6 Oregon lost out of the top 10. #4TCU squeaked by #18 Texas. Next weeks games: #1 GA at KY #2 Ohio St @ MD #3 Michigan v #21 IL #4 TCU @ Baylor #13 UT @ OR #8 USC @ #12 UCLA (BC @ ND) In 2 weeks: #3 MI @ #2 OSU #20 ND @ #8 USC Then conference championship games.

You know I'm looking at trading for one. We don't have to just settle on the best one we can get for the money on a 1 year deal.