moonslav59

I do, too, but the money he got proves GMs look beyond ERA and see that after he shook off the "rust" early in the season, he got back into form.

It's hard to know. Maybe Bloom likes some other pitcher better. Maybe he likes getting the draft pick and finding an equal or better pitcher somewhere/somehow else.

It seems we often miss out on player's better years: Miley Pablo Melancon Many others.

That's nice. So, are you sure about where ERod's pick will be? Are you sure, if we sign someone with QO, we don't lose our 2nd highest pick?

I admitted, I got it wrong. I said it ended up not being a cliff. That does not mean we chose the wrong word, since3 it was what we meant at the time. Rest or cliff? We wildly missed expectations in 2019, finished last in 2019 and were expected to suck in 2021. The fact that we surprised in 2021 doesn't make the choice of words wrong. The fact that a sustained "cliff" did not happen means we were wrong about the length of the cliff- not necessarily the choice of words. We thought it would be a cliff- so the word was appropriately chosen. We were just wrong- as were those who said we'd never fall like we did in 2020.

The decline certainly started. The "same team" on paper, ignores aging regressions, and the fact that several players had enormously good season- some a bit out of line with their career trends. We can argue semantics all day. Maybe semi-cliff is too harsh. BTW, we also lost Kelly and Pom. If we are going by expectations and not results, then why not count 2021 as a "cliff," since almost everyone expected failure?

Maybe the choice of words was wrong, and the surprising 2021 season kept the "cliff" from being 2 or 3 years long, depending on whether you count 2019 as the start of "the cliff." I was wrong about it being more than a year long. (I don't count 2019.) I was wrong about us needing more time to build the farm back up to decency, but we still have a ways to go to get our farm to the point where we can sustain substantial farm input every year. Personally, I thought the word cliff was appropriate for what we expected, but it just didn't turn out to be as long as we thought. Had we missed the playoffs, like we almost did, would we be arguing about this not being a cliff?

Yes. I meant missed playoffs in 5 of 6 years- sandwiched around the 2013 WS season.

He might have offered him $18M x 3.

The Tigers are also looking at Correa or another big SS name.

I think many were okay with us paying ERod about the same as Eovaldi ($68M/4), and $77M/5 is really just about $9M for year 5 (at age 33.) I think I might have matched the Tiger offer, but it's understandable Bloom apparently did not. (It might have been the opt out that Bloom refused to give.)

No ERod really puts a big hole in our rotation. Out of our 812 IP by starters, this year, we lose nearly half: 157 ERod 110 Richards 100 Perez 2 Peacock 369 IP (over 45%) Maybe Whitlock (or Houck) can eat 140-160 of those, next year, but we still need a 180-200 inning guy. We also lose these RP'er IP (about 220 IP): 62 Ottavino 37 Andriese 26 Richards 25 Robles 20 Workman 14 Perez 14 Brice ~22 others

I'm sure there are dozens of other pitchers out there to be plucked by trade. I hope Bloom plucks the right blossom.

I liked both Miley trades- getting and giving him up. I loved the Dodger dump trade and called it a top 3 Sox trade of my lifetime.

Those years we finished in last place in 5 of 6 seasons, we were still big spenders. The redeeming aspect of those years was that we built a farm and solid foundation of young MLB players for the window that included 3 straight first place finishes. (Some of those teams looked better, on paper, than how they ended up doing.)

I thought the sandwich was after round 1.

The money freed up helped, and we got Miley for some of the Dodger return players.

I don't remember any of the cliff dwellers taking about a 3+ year drought. I also don't think any felt like it would be just one year, either, but I suppose one could call 2019 a semi-cliff year. I thought it would take longer to build the farm back to middle of the pack than it has, and I felt we'd be re-setting, which we did. I wasn't sure about staying under for 2 years, and our playoff season in 2021 was a bit unexpected. Hats off to Bloom for that. I will agree that the "cliff" did not last as long as all of us thought, but we did have one, and we still have a ways to go to get to a sustainable winning formula and roster.

This team has continually gone under the tax line, sometimes for 2-3 straight years, so it really should have been expected- chosen or not. It was the posters who felt like henry should and WILL continue to spend over the tax line year after year who had the "problem with the cliff theory" not those who expected what has always happened before and did happen again.

Is pick 41 for Fabian? Is the ERod sandwich pick listed? if so, which one?

This seems to contradict... A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick. If that team loses a free agent, it will be awarded a Draft pick immediately following Competitive Balance Round B. The 13 clubs that fall into this category during the 2020-21 offseason are the Angels, Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Nationals, Phillies, Rangers, Red Sox and White Sox Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2021 Rule 4 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first round-pick. Qualifying Offer | Glossary | MLB.com WWW.MLB.COM The Official Site of Major League Baseball

I think we trade for a lower salary pitcher (Montas or Castillo or one year guys like Bassit, Manaea or S Gray.)

Wow, the opt out is interesting.

Who is happy?

I thought they lose their 2nd pick, even if it a comp pick.