moonslav59

Why do you assume others don't know there "is now ML soccer in Atlanta and Seattle," and what has that got to do with baseball or the price of tea in China?

Max, the Sox were 40-39 when Vaz started, so obviously he was a huge plus, this year. The team had a losing record when he did not start. He's clearly a winner. His clubhouse and team leadership clearly showed up every game, as his teammates came to play focused, determined and energetic, this year. We were 71-51 in his 2021 starts. (21-19 others) 19-26 in 2020 (5-10 others) 62-60 in 2019 (22-18 others) 46-21 in 2018 (64-33 others) 51-36 in 2017 (42-33 others) 27-22 in 2016 (66-47 others) If anything, it appears we won at a better rate with Vaz than with others, most years. I won't bring up CERA disparities, right now.

I remember when the O's and Pirates failed to sell out WS games back in the 70's. Did you "fail to recognize" that?

Binelas and Hamilton might end up being better than absolutely nothing, but the trade still sucked and still sucks.

Could be. I readily admit my theory may be wrong, but it seemed like we were desperate to find the right mix in an OF that has been the worst in MLB. We all have heard and then seen the horror show Duran is on defense, and yet, we chose to play him away from LF rather than Verdugo. To me, JBJ is a great defensive CF'er, so why not (v RHPs)... LF Duran CF JBJ RF Verdugo Did Duran look comfy in CF? Is JBJ better in RF vs CF? I'm just wondering why they never tried it, even once. I came to the conclusion they don't like Dugo anywhere but LF, but now, it seems okay. Yes, JBj is gone and Pham is here, so it's much easier, now, but still...

soxprospects.com makes no hint of electric anything. https://www.soxprospects.com/players/delarosa-luis.htm

Have we given up hope on Cordero being a serviceable platoon corner OF'er or 4th OF'er? (I'm pretty close.)

I do, too. I liked Dalbec, Shaw & Casas in March, too. Not all expectations work out well, but this seems worth another try. (I'm only saying this as a way to divert more money to filling other high need areas for 2023.)

Careful. Only hindsight evaluations count.

I don't expect every Sox fan to be optimistic about the future. I, for one, expect us to keep improving from the low point of 2020. I like the way our farm is deeper and stronger. I like the way our 40 man roster is deeper and stronger, and looks to be even better when we add 5-6 quality rule 5 players and fill 4-6 slots with about $90M to spend, this winter. Will we win it all in 2023 or 2024? Who knows, but I like the direction we are headed towards. Do I like the results of 2022 after 108 games? Hell NO! I did after 75 and 80 games, but that seems like eons ago. Maybe it comes down to what each of us expected after 2020. I'm going to come out and say it: I get the feeling those who were most in denial about the whole impending "cliff" talk are the one's most angry and vindictive about that becoming a reality. Henry saw it coming and cut the budget to reflect that reality. he hired a rebuilding style GM from an organization known for doing the best with limited budgets, talent evaluation and building up the farm and developmental systems. There is all kinds of evidence that points to a planned lull in competitiveness, despite the rhetoric top brass has spewed to try and keep fans thinking we will continue being an exciting team to watch, during the rebuild. We can deny this is a rebuild all we want. We can cry and cry about the here and now hurting so badly, and scramble to heep blame on the easiest targets all we want, but maybe, just maybe some of our expectations were way too unrealistic. The way MLB has structured how teams can add young talent to their system has chanced over the last few years. It's much harder for rich teams to just buy IFAs or over slotted draft picks. It's not easy to just turn a bottom 5 farm system into a top 5 or 10 system. Even 4-5 years might be an unrealistic expectation. It's easy to just point to a $230M budget and say, any team with that budget should be winning and blame the Gm and manager, if they are not. It's not an umeritted position to hold. It's not UNrealistic. It makes sense. I get it, but there is more to it than just seeing $230M as the only thing that counts. To me, the posters that attempt to have a balanced view of things are being viewed as some sort of extreme Cora/Bloom loyalist, because they are not drinking the same angry, blame infested Kool-Aid drunk by the cliff deniers. Okay, now I'm going to be called out for getting too personal, and I deserve it, but I'm tired of being accused of being something I am not, so I'm dishing out the same medicine I'm seeing thrown at some of us. It doesn't feel good, does it? (Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question, and most of those who will respond are on ignore, anyway.) I don't see any poster as a Bloom loyalist. Some certainly defend him more than others, but I don't see posters like Kimmi and Max as being extreme. I do see a select few of the Bloom bashers as being unrelenting and mean spirited, and way more extreme than Kimmi, Max, Bell, notin and myself. (I may be missing a few.) Go ahead, have at it, but it is what it is. We are paying the price for 2018, and you don't want to face it. When we win again, and I truly think we will, maybe you'll ease up, although I'm not sure some of you even know how to, even when things are going well.

.725 might be all we need to get back to the top, if we can spend more on other open slots, this winter. Getting a free 1Bman may be a bigger help that we realize. If McGuire can handle the staff better, and get his OPS up to .650 of .700 (Vaz's career OPS or .694 from '21-'22), maybe the money saves at catcher can further help improve other positions without having a setback at catcher.

Can you explain what "so loyal to Bloom" means? Is being critical of several of his moves while providing context and nuance being loyal or overly loyal? Is pointing out that many of the moves he's most being criticized for are not complete, yet, as the prospects are still prospects being overly loyal for your tastes? Is looking beyond how good we look, at this very moment in time, being overly loyal or maybe just having a different viewpoint? Had one judged Bloom when we had the 3rd best record in the AL, a couple months ago, we'd have a totally different judgement. Is recognizing making judgments based on a single point in time a sign of extreme and unworthy loyalty or just a different way of viewing situations? I'm not sure your claim that our positions are based on "loyalty" are all that accurate. I wasn't "loyal" to DD, but I'm glad as hell Henry hired him. He did a fantastic job bringing us 3 first place finishes and the best season in Sox history. Nothing anyone says will take anything away from that, but it did come at an expected cost. I was happy paying that cost and that cost was to sacrifice some of our future success to go all in. I have no regrets, but I also feel like the next GM deserves some slack and time to build the team, farm and system back up to a highly competitive level. The 2021 season got me hopeful it could be done faster than I expected it to take back in 2020, but it doesn't change the fact we had a long way to go to get b ack to or near the top. If that makes me an extreme loyalist or apologist in the eyes of some or even many, so be it. I think I'm just being a realist. (Not that those who disagree with me are not realistic, as well.)

You don't have to convince me. I have no idea how good McGuire is with maximizing pitching staff value, but I'm hoping he's better than Vaz was.

How many "I Love Bauer" tattoos have been removed by drunken Dodger fans. That contract, alone, equals all the bad Bloom contracts combined, unless you count Story's deal as bad after 1/8th of the term.

And 5 years from 2013 to 2018. I'm not saying we will win in 2023, another 5 years, but I do think we can get to the point of being a top ring competitor by 2023 or 2024, if we spend near or just over the tax line.

As much as I dumped on Vaz's handling the staff, I never viewed him as a net negative, but I do think it's interesting to see him being viewed as the back-up catcher in Houston. (that may change over time, I might add.)

Total up the Dodgers foolish spending over the last 3 years and compare to Bloom's, then get back to me. Sure, they've spent a lot of contracts that have worked out well, because they can, but I'm sticking with my drunken sailor analogy. Drunken sailors don't only spend on bad things. Sometimes, they spend on top shelf liquors.

You crack me up.

I was joking, and yes, I am an English teacher.

We are going to make a serious run at 5 rings under Henry. This is NOT the first time he's gone cheap on new spending, sometimes for 2-3 year stretches. Nobody is hoping we become the Rays. We are hoping we can take the Rays' approach and add spending to the equation and become consistent winners but with actual rings to show for it. The Dodger and Astros have taken that approach. The Dodgers have spent like drunken sailors, but the Astros have let some big stars walk and have made the ALCS 4 straight seasons. It can be done, but not overnight. The Astros were as bad as our 2020 team, long ago. They did not rebuild overnight.

To me, it was obvious. They knew they were not going to re-sign him in 2 months. (Even if they like him, he's all but said, he'd come back as a FA.) We got two rising prospects, and then we traded garbage (Diekman) for a decent defensive catcher that may hold his own when compared to the Astros now back-up catcher.

We should have never let John Denver go, although his personal life was a bit concerning.

Plus, name one "supporter" who blindly supports every move Bloom has made. I think some bashers confuse trying to justify why Bloom made a particular move or that the financial restrictions add context to why Bloom chose a $5M guy over a $15M guy means we think the move was a success. It doesn't. I rarely see the bashers trying to add any context. I rarely see them mention Whitlock, Schreiber, Refsnyder, Schwarber, Iggy, Wacha, Starhm and a few others who have already earner their pay and then some along with the failed moves. It seems to be all one-way, and when we try to soften the bashing, we are accused of being total Bloom apologists. I'm still asking for one name of a poster who has supported all or even 90% of Bloom's moves, and remember, offering context to what a bad move was made is not supporting the move,

They aren't but after 2019, they cut salary like KC and MIA. After 2020, Bloom was handed $40M, which seems like much more than KC and MIA but he had 10-14 slots to fill. That's not what NYY and LAD ever face.

I don't see a single poster giving Bloom a free pass on everything or even almost everything. I do see posters trying to give context to why certain moves were made and why the moves might have been understandable, at the time they were made, just like I try to defend DD's Sale extension at the time it was made but how it sucks, now. I also see a fw ardent Bloom bashers who will continue to bash him no matter what happens and no matter what anyone else says. I am sure they have their reasons. Every poster who attempts to soften the blows thrown at Bloom are fair game to be ripped and tossed under the bus. But not the team leaders and clubhouse wonders. They never mention any of his many good moves, and make it sound like everything he touches turns to doo-doo. Many assume he is choosing to not spend big and wants to run the team like the Rays. Personally, I think 2021 raised fans expectations beyond reason. The 2022 team and farm are vastly better than the one handed Bloom. The DD budget is going to be greatly reduced, this winter, and Bloom should be judged on the teams progression from the end of 2019 to now and the end of this winter's moves and decisions. I'm fine with people holding Bloom accountable. I don't think it's a black and white as many seem to think it is, but that's the way of the world, these days. Little nuances and context is present. Bloom should be held accountable for all his choices. He's made plenty of bad choices. Some look god-awful right now, but some of those still have time to be righted or at least partially improved upon. The Beni trade is already looking better than it did at first. His team control is over after this season. We replaced his salary with renfroe, last year, and that alone just about evened up the score. Now Wink is tilting the trade to a net plus, and we still have more to see from him and the other 3 far-away prospects. The Pivetta-Seabold deal was golden. The JBJ trade looks like a total bust, and it hurt the finances, but Binelas and hamilton do still show faint promise, so maybe we need another year or two to know just how bad the deal was. Many of Bloom's mid-level signings ranged from meh to bad, but what is really expected of most $3M to $10M signings? 50-50 success rate? Paxton Richards (Barnes extension) (Ottavino/German salary dump trade) (JBJ-Renfroe trade) Kike M Perez I and M Perez II Wacha Hill Diekman Strahm Renfroe Pillar Marwin Peraza Sawamura Moreland Andriese One can easily argue these deals show less than 50% success, so bash away on these, but don't forget Whitlock, Winckowski, Schreiber, Refsnyder, Arroyo and a few other under-the-radar moves than probably balance those out or maybe even go plus side. Are we better off now than the end of 2019 and start of 2020? I'd say clearly much better on the 26, the 40, the farm and the finances. Call me a "prolific" poster who supports Bloom, but I am not one who never criticizes Bloom. It seems to me, there are more Bloom bashers who rarely mention the good than Bloom supporters who rarely mention the bad. That's my perception, anyway.