moonslav59

I think one ring, within a reasonable time frame, would help fans get over the loss. I doubt we deal Devers this deadline, and maybe not until next deadline. The story signing sealed Bogey's fate, IMO. It will be interesting to see what we get for him, but it might not be what we hope. This winter will be extremely interesting, especially if we have a summer fire sale.

Agreed, assuming Arroyo does not impress down the road. I'd keep Downs and Koss over Arauz.

I'm not giving up on Downs, but I think he'll be a 2Bman not a SS, and others are passing him, or will shortly.

We all know Downs will never play SS for the Sox. Even 2B is a stretch. Maybe we keep him there to improve his trade value, but his stock is not going up and may never again. I'd play Koss at SS and move Downs to 2B or another team.

What's hard to understand about the farm being the future, and someday that future will be today. The Betts, Devers, Bogey stars you cling to, were the prospects of yesterday. The ones not traded away. The ones that gave us low cost massive production and a ring in 2018. Of course no "farm boy hit a HR" for us, tonight. Nobody is saying they did. It's obvious you have disdain for prospects. You have exposed your disdain over and over. How do I think minor leaguers are "more than that?" They have future value. Some will not make it, some will. The more you have the better the odds. The better you have, the better the odds. It's no sure bet, no matter what, but increasing your odds for success is what baseball is all about- at all levels, not just the bigs. A GM has to weight the here and now vs the future. A good GM tries to balance them and improve the odds in all areas at once. It's not easy. Again, you don't have to have a plan or even any ideas, and listening to talk show opinions all day long may be what brings you enjoyment as you join together in nonconstructive and hollow criticism. Carry on. I'll stay tuned out of that circle jerk.

Will you get off your talk show rant. Fine. Don't give a plan. Just keep bashing away at everyone else's. Don't pay big for guys like Betts and Devers, but don't waste their years with us. Without telling us a possible solution or plan/idea, your continuous bashing rings hollow. Your vague statements about getting pitching for Betts, not doing this or that is not a plan or a better idea.

Knowing this team, maybe pretty well. They are master confounders.

I seriously doubt a perfect 9th inning closer adds 8 wins to our total, as Red suggests. Taking Whitlock out of the long relief/stater role, where he as dove pretty well, to be the 1 inning closer would hurt our chances at even getting to a save opportunity in those games.

Maybe someday I'll go over each of our losses and or blown save games, but a quick look at the numbers shows we are 23-3 when going into the 9th with a lead. Now, some of those games were surely not save situations but I'm not sure how we'd have 8 more wind with a great traditional 9th inning closer- be it Whittlock or Raul Iglesias. We are 20-4 when leading in the 8th, and 19-5 in the 7th. I suppose we blew some saves in some of those wins, by allowing the opponent to tie the game, and we then scored to win a few. We can't assume every blown save leads to a loss, and it is also possible to have multiple blown saves in the same game. We are 1-7 in extra inning games, where traditional closers are not used very often in tie games. We are also 0-19 when behind in the 8th and 9th. (0-18 in the 7th.)

Maybe taking Whitlock out of his starting and long relief roles means we have less save opportunities, later. The guy did great in long relief, last year and has done well, this year, too. It's not a simple equation. Now, in hindsight, not using Houck as a piggy-backer and maybe using him as a closer, might have made a bigger difference than moving Whitlock out of a role he has done well in.

How many games did we start behind or tied and the pen kept us in the game, and we either won of failed to score enough to win? How would taking Whitlock out of his long man/starter role have affected those games? How do we know Whitlock would have excelled in a 1 inning traditional role, when his history as a closer is tiny and not so good? You make a lot of assumptions, and tend to only see the good side of taking someone out of one role and putting him in another. Sure, we lost some games Whitlock started, but only two because of him- maybe. I'm not disagreeing about giving Whitlock or Houck a chance at closing, but assuming we'd have won way more games is just a guess.

So, the best closer in the league never blows saves? So, has we not started Whiltock, his replacement would have done just as well, and not lost any of the game we won when he started? You are assuming perfection from the closer, and equality from Whitlock's replacement. You are also assuming what we spent on a closer would not have affected other spending and created a hole somewhere else. Maybe we signed a closer and not Strahm and Wacha. Still gain 8 wins? Are you assuming we signed everyone we did sign plus a top closer? Once again, you won't tell your plan or ideas- just some vague, "should have got a closer," or "Whitlock as the closer..." Look, I'm not saying Cora and Bloom are blameless, and that going with this pen to start the year was a good idea, or that counting on Sale, then Paxton to be good, this year was prudent, but there were only so many dollars to spend, and we had 2-3 holes in the rotation, 2-3 holes in the pen, a hole at 2B, and 2-3 holes in the OF, plus a catcher who can't hit or handle a staff very well. Expecting a GM and manager to strike gold at every slot needing improvement on a limited budget is not logical. Blame who you want. The blame game seems to be the way of the world, now. I'm giving Bloom more time to fix a system that was very broken, when he took over. I think he's done a pretty good job along the way. We won't know, for sure, for a while longer, and I understand the impatience and the feeling that we are wasting prime years from Bogey, Devers and JD. We can't trade them for the future, of Sox Nation will go bonkers. We can't sign big FAs to supplement these few stars, because Henry won't allow it. We did better than expected, last year, and are doing worse than expected, this year, but when you look at 2020, we've come a long way. Maybe the farm does not pan out. Maybe they are as good as the guys DD traded 4-5 years ago, and Bloom would be right to trade a bunch of them, before their value drops. Maybe he should have traded some, already. I'm just thinking the farm appears to be improving quickly and deeply, and the area we have always struggled in, pitching, is looking better than I've seen in a long time. We'll see what happens, and ultimately, Bloom will be judged by that and his signings/trades. Like most GMs, he's been hit and miss on many of them, so far. We've seen some massive decline by Sox players in or nearing their prime. I guess Bloom is responsible for not knowing that was going to happen. I think he did well replacing Richards and Perez with Wacha and Hill, replacing Ottavino with Strahm. Maybe a push on Schreiber/Diekman for Andriese and others, and too early to call on replacing Renfroe, Marwin, Santana & Chavis (plus in season additions of Schwarber, Iggy & Shaw) with JBJ & Story. These moves are not the reason we have sucked; it's the players who were already here and dropped off a cliff that are the main reason for the sharp decline in wins, IMO.

Many of the blown saves came before the 9th, so it's not like having the best closer in MLB means all 12 blown saves go away. We lack an 8th inning guy. We lack a 7th inning guy. We lack a second ninth inning guy to pitch when your closer needs a rest. We lack an 8th inning guy to pitch when your 8th inning guy need s a rest. I seriously doubt having the best closer in the league would give us more than 4 more wins.

Sounds like I worded it correctly. Since none have produced, yet, they are useless. What am I missing? Your disdain for prospects is obvious, and you just showed it again. Again, no plan. You have no plan, or want to keep it a secret. A no plan GM is just what we need. Fire Bloom. Hire Red!

No, I don't think a "huge" impact, because you have to subtract what either gave us in their other role. Who starts, instead of Whitlock? Crawford? Is it a slam dunk Whitlock cuts the blown saves in half? Let's say he does, and takes away 6 of our 12 blown saves, which is not likely, since many of those blown saves were before the 9th inning, so how does he save those games, if he's the traditional 9th inning closer? Let's say we lose only 1 more with him not starting. We gain what? 5 games at the very most? I guess that would be a big impact, but I'm not sure "huge." We'd be luck to be at .500.

2nd and third, no outs and 2 of your best hitters up. This team is snakebit.

I read the post correctly.

Who is saying either is a liability?

Rafaela with a bases loaded triple give Greenville an 11-10 lead. (He is 3 for 4 and batting .324.)

The fire sale to end all fire sales.

Me neither. We've blown a bunch of saves. Our pen kept us in many games, early in the season, when the starters were struggling, and the bats were silent. I doubt having Houck or Whitlock closing would have made a huge impact, but who knows? The offense killed us early. The pen killed us in the middle, and now it's something different every loss. We're back to Devers throwing the ball away, and the bats sleeping.

We're not even sure what he's asking, and how much he will accept. I don't think he's demanding top 3 pay.

You never give your idea on a plan. You have repeatedly said (in so many words) prospects are not to be valued. You leave is guessing what you mean, because you won't say it.

Look it up yourselves.

He had his bags packed and ticket bought.