moonslav59

Are you being sarcastic?

If they were losing money, every year, they wouldn't be selling them at enormous profits. I know this is not always true or a real bell weather, but the money these guys make when the decide to cash it all in, is usually incredible.

Spoken by the master, himself.

"The market" (media & fans) soured on these guys, and not just because of injuries.

Yup, and there are satellite companies owned by team owners that make tons of money off the team. (Like ownership in the cable company showing the games, concessions and memorabilia, etc...)

Both spent like maniacs, this winter!

Price did have issues with the "market," too. Pablo sucked, here. AGon did well, but was thought to be part of beergate. Renteria was hurt that one year that cost us about $40M. CC did not come close to what he did in his recent years with the Rays. HRam did okay, but that injury messed him up, and he petered out at the very end. Our last biggest deals have largely been failures to varying degrees. It's easy to understand the uneasiness with wanting to go large and long on anyone.

Worm can re-opened.

They'd sure like to think that.

Eovaldi had exceed expectations, after his signing, despite missing sometime that first contract season. Not only has he pitched more games and innings than most thought he would, he'd done as good or better than at any time in his career. He wasn't over the hill, when we signed him. His contract years run from age 29-32, so that is basically prime. ERA+ by team 96 LAD (age 21-22) 1.440 WHIP 93 MIA (age 22-24) 1.363 94 NYY (25-26) 1.387 97 TBR (28) 0.982 115 BOS (28-31 with age 32 to go) 1.280 His 127 ERA+ since 2020 is right up there with the best. In 2021, he led the league in GS (32) and FIP (2.79).

Sale runs with scissors in each hand and in his pockets.

No doubt, but like I said, nobody is happy about needing to replace Eovaldi with some one who projects to do what he has just done at just $17M/yr going forward.

Close to Moncada money- more with inflation figured in (same with Dice-K, who also had an enormous posting fee/bid)

Yes, it's just one, and as a RHB, he'd likely get more action than Duran would. I doubt the A's take Downs for Manaea & Piscotty, let alone adding Trivino, but they might take Jordan for the 3.

Who is happy about that $17M coming off the books? He is mentioned when we say how much money is coming off the books, but replacing him and Bogey for $17 and $20M will not be easy.

Indeed, and the systm has changed to not allow for that anymore. I mentioned that, too, but there are still cases like Suzuki where we keep missing out. We paid Dice-K.

It wouldn't be to expect great things from him, but as a 4th OF'er playing only vs LHPs, he might still be an upgrade over JBJ, Duran and even Verdugo. My idea was that maybe we trade Duran and others for Montas or Manaea or a catching prospect plus Piscotty, so we don't have to give much else to the A's. They would love to dump his salary. BTV accepted these deals: Downs (or just Gonzalez or Jordan) for Manaea, Piscotty & Trivino Duran, Seabold, Bonaci & Wong for Langeliers, Picotty & Trivino Duran, Dalbec, Bello, Downs & Gonzalez for Montas, Langeliers, Piscotty and Trivino

Leyt's hope his velocity returns. Without it, the change-up has little affect.

I've certainly lost my higher hopes for him, after hearing all this and watching him try to get just one out, yesterday. My point was he was probably not "horrible" in AAA last year, and he certainly was not as good as his numbers indicated- which had kept my hopes up for him, until recently. I also was going off of some soxprospects reports: 5/5/21 Connor Seabold got the start in the last game of the series and was solid, throwing six shutout innings, striking out five, while allowing five hits, walking two. The Mets lineup featured several former major league players, so it was a good test for him and he passed easily, even though he lacked feel for his best pitch. Seabold came out throwing 93-95 mph in the first before settling in at 91-94 mph. His control was plus, but his command was a little off and he lost it at times, especially in the second inning. Whenever it went, however, he was able to pitch through it and work out of trouble. Seabold’s best secondary is his changeup, but he only threw it a few times of the course of the outing. It was clear he lacked feel for it until his sixth inning off work when he threw a few good ones—both parts of that statement confirmed by Seabold in his post-game press availability. With his changeup lacking, he instead relied on his slider, which flashed solid-average potential. It ranged from 81-86 mph and had short, 10-to-4 break. He showed confidence in the pitch, which is an encouraging development as our previous reports had it as a clear third pitch and more on the developmental side. If that pitch can get to average, along with his increased velocity and plus changeup, that gives him three at least average pitches in his arsenal. Seabold also showed a fourth pitch, a curveball, that he has used sparingly before. It came in 75-79 mph with longer, 11-to-5 shape. He did not consistently snap it off and it seemed like a fringe-average pitch at best. Overall, it was an encouraging look, as Seabold was able to control a veteran lineup without his best pitch. 10/27/21: Not so flattering, but not so dismal either. Coming into the 2021 season, Connor Seabold (#SP60 no. 8) was seen as one of the top pitching prospects in the system and potential major league depth should the need arise. The need did arise, but unfortunately, Seabold missed the first two-and-a-half months of the minor league season with right-elbow inflammation and only threw 62 2/3 innings between the minors and one MLB start posting a 3.59 ERA and 1.17 WHIP with 64 strikeouts and 24 walks. In April, prior to his injury, Seabold was sitting 91-95 mph at the Alternate Training Site. His slider looked better than it did last year, but he did not have feel for his changeup, which was his best pitch coming into the year. He also had added a curveball as a fourth pitch. After his injury, Seabold put up good numbers, but his stuff was inconsistent and his velocity did not return. He sat 89-92 mph and topped out at 93, a grade below what he was before. His feel for his changeup was still inconsistent, to the point where scouts saw his slider as having replaced it as his primary secondary. Scouts still have confidence in his feel and command, but the decreased velocity and regressing changeup create a wider range of outcomes. Seabold still has major league potential, but he looks more like a number five starter or swing-man type rather than the potential number four starter he looked like before. In the AFL, I will be closely watching reports on his stuff to see if his velocity and changeup come back. If they do, his projection could return to what it was heading into the season, but if not, it adds another data point and further questions about whether his pre-injury stuff will ever come back and lead to more questions heading into 2022. Their summary evaluation: Potential number 5 starter. Ceiling of a solid 3-to-4 starter. Lacks a plus pitch right now, but will show three at least-average offerings. Strong pitchability and advanced command and control profile allow his arsenal to play up. At his best, can generate whiffs with three pitches. Not the highest ceiling, but command/control and feel/pitchability, combined with proximity to MLB, give him a high floor. Needs velocity and feel for changeup to return to reach his ceiling. With diminished velocity projects more as a spot-starter or low-end number five type.

Could taking right-handed batting Piscotty and his salary from the A's, to lessen the return package need to get Manaea or Montas (plus maybe Trivino or Langeliers) be worth a looksee?

Agreed. Is there any RHB OF'er who signed, this winter, that was near worth his salary?

I'm not arguing about my opinion on Seabold, last year being right or wrong. I'm totally fine with changing my opinion based on his numbers not matching the scouts observations. I'm talking about your opinion that he was horrible in AAA, last year. Did the scouts say or hint that he was "horrible?"

Not really related to IFA rankings, but I found this interesting. Top 100 prospects are not all there is to ranking or rating a farm system, but based on top 100 prospects, our worst 5 seasons out of the last 33 have been: 33. 2019 32. 2018 31. 2002 30. 2001 29. 2020 https://www.overthemonster.com/2022/1/23/22897560/red-sox-top-prospects-history-baseball-america-top-100 Top 100's since 1990: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L1H_USzTBUu5Hloc45vJV3-LTX5vfr-les_DSszC_gs/edit?hl=en&hl=en#gid=1

I understand the penalty period had a lot to do with the 2015-2018/19 period being rather lame. I never made any comments about our scouting or talent evaluations of IFAs being lame. I only stated that we have not had a big-named IFA since the 2015 signing period. There are many reasons and/or excuses, but we have not. Have we already signed the next guy? Maybe- maybe not. I like Bello and Bleis. Maybe Gonzalez or Jimenez rise up, soon. None have made the national top 100 lists in a long time, for many reasons.

Did you read my last post? I'm granting the chances someone in our system, now, might crack the top 50 or 100 in a few years, but there that doesn't speak to 2015-2018 or 2019.