moonslav59

ABA teams, too. Just because the AFL and ABA no longer "stand alone" does not mean they weren't a success or did not create a popular alternative to the NFL and NBA for a long stretch.

It's survived for over a century. It will be okay.

So, neither one partially negates the other one.

They spent close to $190M, last year and have a lot of fan attendance and high TV viewership numbers for a market populated by many people who follow other teams. They can spend big, like the Sox can. They are paying ALtuve $29M per and Verlander $25M.

So true.

While longer team control does help the lower budget teams keep their better players longer, they still never win it all and rarely even compete for the playoffs, unless it is TBR or OAK. I really think they need to set a min player salary budget for teams.

They do have some fine young talent coming up, but yes, they let some very key stars go, in the name of not spending more than they want or need to spend.

On paper, the window should have lasted at least through 2019. Thing going wrong just kept piling up. Key 2018 players like Eovaldi, Pearce and Nunez lost their magic. Price and Sale combined for just 249 innings. Porcello adding a run to his ERA. No Kimbrel, Kelly and others. The window shut earlier than hoped or expected, but man felt a downturn was coming, eventually.

Many saw the writing on the wall, when DD went just about all-in. The farm was nearly emptied- glad he kept Devers and drafted well. Big contracts led to having to let Kimbrel and others go, needing to pay Eovaldi to "stay even," and paying Sale, knowing an injury was likely, at some point.

I'm all for ... Devers forevers An all around great SS or one that plays great D and adding a stud at another position.

I'm with you 100%. I'm just saying the 6 year control thing is ultimately about money, especially to teams that can't afford or pretend like they can't afford to keep their stars.

A ton of money comes off the books after 2022: Bogey, JD, Eovaldi, Kike, Vaz, Wacha, Hill If we don't spend, next winter, there will be hell to pay. (pun intended.)

soxprospects.com's 2022 Projected AAA and AA Rosters: AAA SP: Seabold, Winckowski, Crawford, K Hart, B Keller, REspinal RP: Bazardo, Valdez, Z Kelly, M Feliz, D Feltman, K Ort, F German, J Schreiber, C Simpson, G Hartlieb C: Wong, R Hernandez 1B: Casas 2B: Arauz 3B: Munoz, Williams SS: Downs, Fitzgerald LF: Stewart, Castellanos CF: Duran RF: Refsnyder, Mieses DH: Cordero AA SP: Bello, Groome, Murphy, Santos, Gambrell, T Ward, Van Belle RP: Shugart, Spacke, ZBryant, AJPolit, OMosqueda, J Martinez, R Gomes, B Nail, ZScellenger C: Cottam, EMarrero/O Rangel 1B: Granberg, TReed 2B: Koss 3B: Howlett, HPotts SS: Hamilton, Sogard LF: Dearden, TEsplin CF: Rosario RF: I Wilson DH: Cannon Lower Levels: P: W Gonzalez, B Walter, N Song, Wu-Yellan, S Drohan, B Blalock, Liu C: Hickey, E Lira 1B: Jordan 2B: Yorke, Pauliono 3B: Binelas SS: Bonaci, MLugo OF: Jimenez, Bleis, McDonough, Rafaela, Decker

I'm not a big fan of hard caps, but it does seem to level the playing field in other sports.

Adding an arb year but keeping 6 years of team control is what I think ends up being the "compromise." I also think raising the min wage by a lot would be a big get by the players and would not add much to the team bottom lines.

I'd like 10 years, but to be fair, I think players should be FAs earlier.

The "principle" about 6 years of team control is ultimately about money, though.

Yes, the fielder affects the pitcher's results and numbers, but it's not like they are acting together to make a play- like a gang tackle or a throw by a QB and a catch by a receiver.

I added the final budget rankings: (Note: Cots has different start of season rankings than my list provided.) Year Team Opening Day Payroll/Final 2021 Braves 15th/14th 2020 Dodgers 1st/1st 2019 Nationals 3rd/4th 2018 Red Sox 1st/1st 2017 Astros 12th/18th 2016 Cubs 4th/5th 2015 Royals 12th/13th 2014 Giants 10th/6th 2013 Red Sox 3rd/3rd 2012 Giants 8th/6th 2011 Cardinals 11th/11th 2010 Giants 10th/11th 2009 Yankees 1st/1st 2008 Phillies 14th/6th 2007 Red Sox 2nd/2nd 2006 Cardinals 11th/10th 2005 White Sox 13th/13th 2004 Red Sox 2nd/2nd 2003 Marlins 25th/20th 2002 Angels 15th/14th 2001 D-backs 8th/4th 2000 Yankees 1st/1st 1999 Yankees 1st/N/A 1998 Yankees 2nd- N/A 1997 Marlins 7th- N/A 1996 Yankees 1st- N/A 1995 Braves 3rd- N/A It's interesting to note that the 2003 Marlins finished 20th in spending, so by that list, no team ever won a ring while finishing a season as a bottom 10 spender. 13 of the last 22 WS winners spent in the top 6 by year's end. (Top 20% spenders won 59% of WS.) 7 from 11-14th 2 from 18-20th None from #7-10 None from #15-17 None from #21-30

The difference between saying Kike was the best Sox defensive CF'er I have seen is that I was comparing him to other CF'ers I have seen play almost every game of their careers. That's a whole lot different from saying a Sox player was the best in all of MLB. I don't watch nearly every game of every player on other teams, like I do with the Sox. I do watch 162 games of other players who are facing just the Sox, but that is very far from knowing just how good other players are on other teams. That is where data and metrics help me know. The eye test is still part of my determination of about where a Sox player fits in the rankings, but data plays a big role. Anyone who watched Yaz in '67 "knew" he was the MVP, but would we have known that, if we saw the stat sheet show another player his .360 50 150 while winning a GG? Of course, we have to look at the numbers others put up, because we don't watch them play everyday.

Eye test, and then the data did show he was having a great season- maybe not the best, on paper, in my 50 years of watching the Sox, but certainly close enough to not be a freaking opinion. (BTW, my comment was meant in the context of a single season- not career., although some career numbers make Kike look great.) Red Sox CF'er since 1972 (50 years) 700+ innings UZR/150 12.1 Kike 9.1 Crisp 6.3 JBJ 4.6 Ellsbury 3.0 Betts -7.7 Damon DRS 51 JBJ in 6754 innings 17 Betts in 1662 innings 14 Kike in just 716 innings 12 Ellsbury in 5218 innings Best seasons by the numbers (700+ innings): UZR/150 25.3 Crisp 2007 17.1 JBJ 2014 16.1 Ellsbury 2011 14.3 Ellsbury 2008 12.1 Kike 2021 (3 straight by JBJ follows) DRS 16 JBJ 2014 (949 innings) 15 Crisp 2007 (1216) 14 Kike 2021 (716) 14 JBJ 2017 (1204) 14 JBJ 2016 (1376) No doubt, Kike had a tremendous defensive season for the Sox in CF in 2021. TREMENDOUS! Eye test UZR/150 DRS per game

I agree. I do think Bloom prefers shorter term FA signings, but I think when the right player and time comes along, he will pounce. Certainly, last winter was not the right time. This winter, I'm not sure the right player was out there, and yes, we have some issues like Bogey and Devers to figure out, before we can know what our longer term finances will look like. I also think that because we did so well, last year, there is not an enormous pressure to go large and long on anyone. While one might view 2022 as a window closing season with Bogey, Eovaldi, Kike and others' team control expiring, and this being a good "time" to go large, I'm thinking maybe they view 2023 or 2024 as the best time to plan for major spending additions to push us over the top.

It's all relative, though, isn't it? If every other SS in MLB had the same or worse range than Bogey, it would not be a negative aspect of his total value. We need to know how good evry SS is to really get a full sense of Bogey's defensive values. We watch the Sox opposing SSs and get a feel for what "others" do, but not really a large enough sample size, through just observations, to know Bogey has better or worse range than many SSs we see. That being said, I do agree that it is noticeable that Bogey has limited range, and the stats and metrics support that observation, but what happens when our observed factors differ from the metrics and data? No one person watched every play made by every SS in MLB, everyday. It's impossible for one person to fully grasp what the exact average range is for MLB SSs, so it's hard to know with any certainty just how far Bogey is from the norm without data complied by multiple sources. None are perfect, but in the relative sense of assigning comparative value, they are better than anyone person's "eye test."

That's the batter vs fielder aspect of one on one.

That helps, but I feel lazy, today.