moonslav59

Indeed, but it's hard to expect a GM to plan on basically every returning vet to decline in production. Sure, some were expected- like maybe JD (age), Nate (age) and Dalbec (due to inconsistency in the past), but had Bloom been a fortuneteller, he'd have had to almost trade away the whole team to do better.

Agreed, and the Houck piggyback idea didn't help. My point is, I don't think it was a bad plan. It was a sketchy plan that did not work, as was 1B, RF, DH and SP depth. Bloom chose to go big at 2B (assuming he wasn't pushed into that late signing) and with the remaining budget was forced to go light. Some worked out: Wacha, Strahm, Schreiber, Refsnyder and maybe Hill to a lesser extent. Some did not: Diekman (although we got McGuire for him and got out of paying 2024), Robles and maybe Story. Had Bloom spent big on the pen, we'd be bitching about the rotation and 2B more.

If all of these guys were healthy and allowed to stay in the pen, all year, I doubt we'd be talking about how awful our pen has been: Whitlock Houck Taylor Barnes Depth: Diekman Strahm Robles, Davis, Brasier, Danish Not really part of "the plan" Schreiber

I think "the plan" was to use Houck or Whitlock, but the Sale injury forced Houck and then Whitlock to start. I also think, with a limited spending budget, they had to choose a few positions to go with what we had at a few them, like the pen, 1B, and 4th OF'er. In hindsight, a few easily better plans might have been... 1. Not signing Story and going lighter at 1B (A Frazier) and then spending more on the pen and OF. 2. Not trading Renfroe and using the money saved on upgrading the pen. 3. Trading JD, maybe with some cash, to save enough to upgrade the pen and maybe sign Bell of someone else to play RF, 1B, CF and or DH.

I actually started a game thread 3 min utes before yours, but it worked. (Maybe I should have started one, today, 3 minutes before yours... LOL.)

Already forgotten.

They will all get several years, and when we go to reset next year, you'd be saying good bye to Devers. I'd rather pay $200M/8 for Bogey or $150M/8 for Swanson, or just get KWong for less than that.

Like I said, maybe not a good plan, but a plan. I'm not sure how many solid closer options were out there after Sale got hurt just prior to ST'ing, but before the injury, I'm not sure thinking one from Houck, Whitlock (your guy), Diekman and Barnes can be called "no plan."

True. Only 26 hits in 50 innings shows some skills, but 19 BBs is a bit worrisome.

He might get near Seager money, so I’m guessing no on Turner. I think we go for Swanson, Anderson or K Wong and move Story toSS.

German's 2022 Farm Numbers AA 11.1 IP 6 Hits 3 BB 18 Ks .493 OPS Against AAA 38.1 IP 20 Hits 16 BB (rather high) 46 Ks .496 OPS Against Overall 2.72 ERA 0.91 WHIP .495 OPS Against 49.2 IP- 26 Hits 64 K:19 BB

How high or low are your hopes?

soxprospects seems to try to minimize the amount of "acquisitions" we will make over the coming winter. I doubt Dalbec makes the bench, unless Hosmer is viewed as a near FT DH. I could see the plan being a Dalbec-Hosmer platoon at DH with Hosmer being the b ack-up 1Bman and Dalbec being the back-up 3Bman. E Valdez or Arroyo might challenge them for PAs at DH, but I don't expect Valdez to be on the opening day 26. Pham does have a nice career split v LHPs at .850, but I agree, there may not be room for him on the 26, especially if we add a SS/2B and RF/DH type, like I hope we do. The 13 might be: C: McGuire & Wong 1B/DH: Casas (Hosmer/ Dalbec- see DH) 2B: Story. Arroyo SS: __________ 3B: Devers LF: Verdugo CF: Kike RF: ___________, Refsnyder DH: Hosmer 1 from: Dalbec, Franchy or Valdez or _________ (Pham?)

No, he did not, but the "second half or '21" was basically 10 IP. I don't think Bloom was wrong to count on him to be a possible solid set-up man that might possibly or even likely win over the closer role from Diekman.

They certainly had a plan. It's one thing to disagree with it, but saying they did not even have a plan is not accurate. If saying that is just hyperbole, fine, but they had a plan and injury contingency plans at every position. IMO, the problem was "the plan" went wrong at too many positions, and many of the contingencies plans failed. The back-up SP'er plan collapsed due to needing to go 3-4 deep for much of the season- having to pull from the pen, at times (Houck & Whitlock.) Out of 144 games, we saw 53 starts from these "back-ups!" 14 Wink 12 Crawford 9 Whitlock 8 Bello 4 Houck 3 Davis & Seabold That's 37%. This caused not only the need to rob from the pen but to tax them with more IP than should have been planned for. Our pen injuries were also excessive, and we did have some long injuries, including Taylor, Houck, Strahm, Barnes and marginal pitchers like Brasier and others. Even Whitlock & Schreiber missed time. I'm not making excuses. We should have added more proven arms, and the Diekman & Robles choice were a failures, but it was a plan. The rest of the plan that went wrong, included: 1B: The plan was to go with a player who had an OPS over .800 in his first 500+ PAs- thinking there was a chance he'd build off his strong second half of 2021 and maybe get even better. The back up plan was Casas, who was widely viewed as being ML ready by May, at the latest (exactly the length of rope a failing Dalbec might require.) Not having a true 3rd option could be viewed as "no plan," I agree, but I think the idea was that Dalbec and Casas could get us to the trade deadline. Needing to use Franchy and Arroyo at 1B did not work well. 2B: Story was a late signing- perhaps an afer thought forced on Bloom. Maybe someday we will know the workings behind that deal. Having an oft-injured Arroyo as the back-up was still a pretty solid plan, and Downs was viewed as a capable deep depth option- at least decent on D. CF: Kike was viewed as a solid CF'er. Big plus on D and decent on O. His injuries crippled us, and I would agree that having Duran as the back-up plan was a mistake, but seeing the 4th OF'er as the biggest hole on a team is not all that short-sighted. RF: JBJ was the plan, and the plan failed spectacularly, here. Many of us foresaw the failure, so it's easy to label it as "no plan," but it was a plan. Refsnyder ended up being an unforeseen nice depth piece added by Bloom, but he is largely overlooked by those focused on mostly the bad moves. DH: Counting on JD was likely a forced choice and not a bad plan. The rotation plan was probably something like this: Sale Nate Wacha Pivetta Hill (Paxton joining in late July or August to take over for a likely injury or decline by one of the 5.) Crawford, Seabold, Winckowski and eventually Bello in the wings, but maybe not ready in April. (Houck and Whitlock as emergency help) That's not a horrible plan. IMO, it's not even a bad one. The early Sale injury hurt- big time. One can rightfully argue, it should have been expected and planned for, but I think we did have a plan: Paxton later in the season and some ML ready prospects earlier in the year and Whitlock or Houck as emergency options. As it turned out, we needed to use both Houck and Whitlock for 13 starts, which severely taxed and shortened the pen early in the season. This put us in a deep hole, we never got out of. Maybe we could have tried Crawford or Wink earlier, instead of taking Houck- then Whitlock out of the pen, and those choices would likely be debated all year long, too. Has Bloom been given $10-20M more in budget spending, maybe we'd have signed- a couple more or better RP'ers than we did sign. I doubt we'd have added a 1Bman like Bell, but we might have signed Pham. One can argue that signing someone else besides Story would have been a better plan, but that was a plan. One can argue not trading Renfroe, which also would have allowed us to spend more on the pen or on Pham was a better plan, but that too was a plan.

A lot depends on how many and how good/healthy starters we add or return from injury (Sale and the Paxton option). We may offer 1-2 QOs (Wacha and Nate.) If we can assume Whitlock and Houck will be in the pen as closers or relief aces, I see it like this: Locks: Whitlock, Houck and Schreiber (it would be wise to add another solid set-up pitcher or two, in case Schreiber stumbles.) Have to prove they don't belong, either over the last 3 weeks of the season and or in ST'ing '24: Crawford, Barnes, Kelly, German That's 7 out of 8, but I'd like to see us add 2 solid pen arms, which would likely squeeze one of the group of 4 back to AAA as depth. Then, there is the Taylor case. If he can return to close to what he was before, he certainly deserves a slot. I think we finally trade Brasier, although soxprospects shows him as having an option left. Danish should begin in AAA with Seabold, Bazardo, ort, DHern, Politi, Feltman and Mata/Walter/Murphy/Ward.

I've been looking forward to this moment.

They do list "Acquisition" for 2 lefty slots in the pen, 2 in the rotation and a SS and RF'er. C Mcquire 1B Casas 2B Story SS (Bogey) 3B Devers LF Verdugo CF Kike RF Acquisition DH Hosmer Bench: Wong, Arroyo, Dalbec, Refsnyder (No Pham) SP RF Acquisition SP Sale SP (Wacha) RF Acquisition SP Pivetta SP Bello LR Crawford LR Winckowski RP Whitlock RP Houck RP Schreiber LH Acquisition LH Acquisition RP Barnes RP Kelly (No Brasier, Danish, Taylor)

Outhit 8 to 3, and we get the win. That type of win has been very rare, this year.

Mayb e they should have given him a try in relief as he passed the 100-110 IP mark. It's likely where he ends up, anyway. Hindsight, I know.

McGuire and Wong seem like they no longer need tutoring.

I think Casas is ready to be given a full chance at first base opening day. We have Hosmer as insurance and Dalbec/Cordero on the farm and Kavadas down the road. For those who keep pining away for us to acquire a 1Bman or 1B/DH type player, I think you will be disappointed for perhaps the 3rd year in a row. I thought we should have called him up earlier, but I trust the Sox on their choice of timing, and his rehab from his injury may have been trickier than I thought. As it stands, we will end up in another trial and error situation or two (or three) in 2024, as well. This could (should?) have been the year to do that.

I think we will eventually notice he is not yet a plus defender, but he is no Dlabec or Franchy with the glove.

Plus, what 34 PA sample size carries any real and sustainable meaning? One could have looked at a much larger sample size of Devers in August and firmly proclaimed he does not look ML ready. It's hard to make any sort of determination over such a tiny sample size, but we do know he's getting his ears wet and learning. He's shown some power, so far. He's shown he can take a walk, so far. I like what I've seen, and a .100 BA in such a short time does not concern me, at all.

Nobody has watched him enough to know if he's ready or not.