moonslav59

If the guy could just stay healthy...

The fact that he is the 41st best player on the Pirates shows just how bad the Sox were in 2020.

Most of the guys who get opt outs are signing extensions with teams that go beyond their arb years. It gives them some security while also giving them an upperhand, if they end up doing very well. (The Bogey situation is an example.) It's interesting to see that the biggest contract given to a player, Price, saw the player not opting out.

Hey, the Pirates just DFA'd Austin Brice, so how bad can they be?

Like I said, I was for offering Betts a lot more than he ended up getting. I'm also the "Devers Forevers" guys, but I'm just saying I understand the strategy not to do it.

Actually, none of the biggest contracts have opt out. Top All Time Contracts: How many have/had opt outs? $426M Trout $365M Betts $341M Lindor $340M Tatis $330M Harper $325M Stanton $325M Seager $324M Cole $300M Machado $275M ARod '08 $260M Arenado $252M ARod '01 $248M Miggy $245M Strasburg $245M Rendon $240M Pujols $240M Cano $225M Votto (Price had an opt out with his $217M deal.)

If you are ever going to large and long again, it should be with someone like Betts. Now that Devers is nearing crunch time, I feel almost the same as with Betts, but I can understand holding firm to the theory of avoiding extra large and extra long contracts.

I think $300M was a fair offer and close to "market value," at the time. I would not offer more than the market value, unless you know you'd do that when he gets to free agency. I think the Sox likely felt no player is worth more than that or for more than 10 years. The record of these large and long deals support their thinking, but man, what a PR hit the team takes when he walks. (This is coming from the poster, who I believe, suggested the highest and longest offer out of anyone else on the board.)

Remember we used DHern, first, and he was actually worse than the horror show Diekman was.

Happiness is a good thing. Can we all agree on that?

Max, I'm on your side on this issue. I don't think the lack of a star closer is the major reason we are not closer in the WC race. I do think we could have a few more wins than we have, if we had a better closer, but until someone says at who's expense, I'm not sure about claiming X amount of net wins. Personally, I wish we had used Houck as the closer from day one and never tried the piggy-back idea. I'm okay with using Whitlock as a starter, because we needed him, there, but I wish we could have used him as a high leverage set-up man from day one (multiple innings, too.) Injuries and other factors made a lot of Cora's choices "lose-lose," and I think Bloom deserves some heat for forcing that on Cora. The fact is, we are 50-6 when leading after 8 IP. For anyone to think we'd have more than 4-5 more wins with a solid traditional closer, I'd like to see an explanation. Plus, had we signed a closer, who do we not sign? If we used Houck or Whitlock as a closer, who starts or sets up? How many games do we lose by using someone else in those open roles? This is not an easy thing to prove from either side.

I'm not saying 5 hits and 4 walks is good offense, but how many times have we had 10-12 hits but none with men is scoring position? We finally maximized our hits, and people seem to just focus on the bad.

If you figure the money you could make on more upfront money vs deferred money, the difference is less than it appears. Yes, I think the COVID situation changed the market, too, but that was likely more in LA's favor.

We all know why.

Even that rubric is flawed, because things changed that off season, and often do. Take the Kimbrel trade. When we traded so many prospects for him, he was making at or near top closer FA market money, and that was one part of the deal I thought was the balance-breaker against the deal, but quickly, the closer "market clost" rose so much, his deal was an underpay for all 3 years. The offer we made to Betts was not really that much lower than the offer he ended up signing. It was the 2 extra years that made up the difference. I'm not claiming that's not huge, but I'm not sure I'd say the reported offer to Betts was "lowball." Lester- YES! Bogey- YES! Devers- ??? (Does anyone know what it was? Plus, it may not be their final offer.)

I know most of "the good" centered around just Pivetta and Barnes, but we did only allow 4 hits and 4BBs to the Pirates. 27 outs. 8 men let on base. No fielding errors made. No major running blunders. Both good things. We got some key hits with men ins coring position, which is something we have lacked, this year. 4 RBis and only 7 men LOB. Good, right? Kike did us a favor by not K'ing 3 times. He only K'd twice and GIDP his other time! LOL, but seriously, he did get an RBI Sac Fly. Not sexy, but good. JD & Hosmer did get on base half the time. Pham got 2 hits. OK, Schreiber had a bad pitch, out of 12 pitches (the 2B,) but I thought he actually pitched well. Barnes was enough for me to see an overall plus, last night.

It's not blather, but it has been repeated so often, I think posters are tiring of it and don't see it as the be-all-end-all point the ends the discussion. It is but one series that resulted in lost series, despite no blown saves. It is a point in support of your position, and I think most people see it for what it is: one point out of many on your side, and that there are many good points on the other side, too.

Yes, totally conjecture, but it's also conjecture to know for sure just how good Betts, Beni, Boegy, Nate and Devers will be after they walk, until hindsight. Letting others walk worked out well. Also, in hindsight, you can see who the GM signed after the FA walked. In Beni's case. I think it's pretty obvious Bloom moved to fill the open OF slot with Renfroe, but one could argue with mrwin, and the point takes on a very different hue.

The Braves just locked up another young stud. Do it early!

Lots of good things happened in that game, too- not just Pivetta.

That's always a good thing, you TROLL!

True, and I think some teams make certain trades, just because they spot something they think can turn a player around. We don't know if this is the case with Gallo, after just a couple weeks. BTW, they might have spotted something, helped him correct it, but he might still fall prey to a new negative glitch in his game, and go back to sucking, again.

Here is a look at some team pitching numbers in key areas: fWAR -0.2 2020 6.4 2012 8.8 2022 (year not finished) 10.6 2014 11.8 2015 ERA- 120 2020 111 2012 107 2022 105 2005 104 2015 WHIP 1.60 2020 1.44 2006 1.41 2009 1.39 2005 1.38 2019 1.38 2021 1.37 2012 1.36 2010, 2015, 2008 1.33 2008 1.32 2014 1.31 2011, 2022 FIP 4.41 2012 (3rd worst) 4.04 2022 (12th worst out of 20/ 8th best) K/BB 2.22 2012 (6th worst) 2.61 2022 (15th worst)

It might be "nuts" to just focus on the closer, when so many other things are not going well, but when your closer sucks, I think it's fair to say so, and offer suggestions to fix it.

The fact that Bloom came close to getting Stallings leads me to think he is on our side, lonely as it is, over here.