moonslav59

Great pull on Papelbon. I like the comp.

I know what they did. I was talking about what was expected on opening day 2013. Vic, Nap and Demp? Meh.

Yes, and since Price was a FA and signed for FA money, I think seeing how he did vs other FAs who signed is something of interest. Taking away the 2018 playoffs, do you think he earned his pay with he Sox? In a sense, we ended up paying him $150M/4.

He did start 25 games out of the gate in 2019, so I'm not sure anything would have shown up on a "physical." Certainly, 2018 put a scare into every GM, and a future injury was a big worry.

Price gave us innings most of the time, but I don't think he earned his keep. He helped in the '18 playoffs, so it's not something I complain about much. I was also for his signing, even though I knew it was an overpay, so being critical of him not reaching his contract value would be hypocritical. We may have been able to trade him elsewhere, but only by paying at least half his deal, IMO. I've never been a fan of the fangraph's value page, but usually because I think they overestimate the value a player gave to a team. Here is the value they gave Price: $35.2M 2016 $11.7 2017 $19.5M 2018 (not including playoffs) $18.7M 2019 _______________ n/a 2020 ($5.6M 2021 w LAD)

I do, too, and I don't want our GM spending big on the pen. (That's one reason I', leaning towards keeping both Houck and Whitlock in the pen, and one for sure.) If we do indeed have $30-40M to spend, this winter and don't spend much on the pen, I'm hoping we can sign a solid #2 or someone like Scherzer to a short term deal, instead of spending on offense.

I don't have any data, but it seems like signing a costly RP'er is almost always bad. Also, I'm not talking a $10M SP'er like Richards or Kluber. I'm talking $20-25M+. Yes, many of those type signings have not been all that good, either, but to me, it seems like they work out better.

I don't think people thought Vic, Napoli and Dempster were any better than AGon & Beckett.

Indeed. You can come up with $30M that makes losing him not seem all that helpful, but you can also come up with this... $14M Kike $3.1M Renfroe + 2 arbs $2.3M Schwarber for 2+ months

I'm not disagreeing. I think both will be good to great starters, and we happen to have 1-2 slots open, next year. IMO, it's more costly, but easier to get a SP'er FA signing right than trying to spend large on a pen. That's the only reason I am resisting moving them both to the rotation, next year.

I think the fact that we made no big splash signings that winter was part of it. I remember being critical about management "playing it halfway" and felt like they should have either gone total youth rebuild or total in for 2013. I think it went beyond the last place finish.

I'd like to face Betts & the Dodgers, but I won't be upset if the Braves win.

Good point, but to move him, we had to include Betts.

Who knows where the evolution of the pen is heading? If anyone might try something out of the box, it might be Bloom & Cora. However, I seriously doubt anyone is even talking about what I suggested might be a way to get the most out of Houck and Whitlock. The reason I'm thinking like this is that they both seem to excel in long relief. We know they do. We also know Houck seems to have issues going past 2 times through a line-up. Both would probably make great 1 inning guys (45-55 appearances). Both might make great starters, even if they don't get past 4 or 5 innings. These days, that's not a fault. We have seen some tinkering with established roles over the last decade. Andrew Miller was one. I think he had over 70 appearances 2 or 3 times in his career and was used for more than 1 inning quite a few times. Chad Green had 67 appearances and 84 IP, this year. Nabil Crismatt had 81 IP in 45 games, which is very close to 2 IP every 3 games. Whitlock pitched in almost a third of our games, this year (46) and went 73.1 IP. He had a stretch in April, where he did this: 3.1 IP 2.0 - 4 days later 1.0 - 6 days later 2.2 - 4 days 2.1 - 4 days 2.0 - 5 days That's not really the same as what I am suggesting as a possible plan, but it's not far off, either.

On the open market, I think Sale could have gotten much more than he signed for with us.

Exactly, and when I scratch my head over starting Sale, I'll never be thinking I'm right and Cora is wrong. Cora knows what he's doing. He has more information that us, too.

Agreed, and if they want more money from more playoff games, do away with the play-in game and make the first round 7 games.

Agreed, and signing any starter to a deal like Price's will be scary and risky, but I still think there are times when you just have to pull the trigger. As much as I see this winter as a time when we can spend big and don't have a lot of holes to fill, so it might be the right time to make such a deal, I don't see a pitcher than comes close to what Scherzer and Price looked like when they were signed.

One game at a time.

There is no "boner," and I have no beef with the doubters. Everyone doubts. You may call it "shaming," but I don't see it that way. I also don't think I'm alienating people. People are pretty harsh towards me for my opinion, and I don't think I'm doing anything worse or more than others. Part of the reason I keep going on about what happened when the team was struggling, is responding to those who replied to my initial posts. Max commented that I have to " think you have to grant that some pessimism was warranted." I responded to that post. I wasn't going on and on, unsolicited. I have my opinions and say what they are. I feel several posters here are much more alienating than I am, but when is the last time you called 700 out? I certainly understand there are a wide variety of fans, and people handle frustration and team losses in different ways. I shouldn't be shamed for pointing out what I disagree with.

Where did I ever say they would do it? Another aspect of this idea is this: the plan would be to use them every 3 days for 2-3 innings, but if they are not needed, which might be pretty often, then they get another day off. They might end up pitching 3 times every 10-12 days (9-11 games). Let's say 7 innings every 10 games. That's about 115 IP over a season. Yes, RP'er usually throw harder, and they warm up a lot by throwing hard in the pen, even when not used, sometimes, but this plan would not have them warming up when they don't pitch, so they'd gain some there over Proctor, who pitched in 83 games one year with over 100 IP. 3 games every 10 is 48 games not 83. 3 games every 9 games is 54 appearances.

The Houston talk show hosts are all saying the Astros have to conatin the big 3- Devers, Bogey and JD, and not worry about the "B players." What a joke! Schwarber has the best numbers of any other Sox player, and guys like Kike, Renfroe and Verdugo have been lighting it up. Dalbec has struggles, recently but was the team's best hitter the last 2 months. Schwarber (.957), Dalbec (.955), Renfroe (.858) and Kike (.832) all outhit Bogey and JD after the all star break. (Devers .862)

I'm not sure going 2-3 innings every 3 days is much different than 5-7 every 5 days. It's actually less IP'd than a starter, and starters have a throwing day in between starts. Of course, the routine is way different, but in terms of wear and tear, maybe the same. My every 2 innings every 2 days might have been too much, but even that is not too different than throwing someone 1 IP 3 out of 4 days. They have to throw hard in warm ups, too.

No, and at the time, I thought the thinking was not flawed. We needed hitting and pitching, and the next year's market had several pitchers available, while Scherzer's year was basically just him, and the bidding got high. The cost of Price was not really cheaper, so in hindsight, that was a big mistake.

We all know how the Sox season ended. Maybe some were not aware how the Astros had their struggles, too. It took longer for them to clinch the ALW than expected. The A's swept them, near the end and during 2-6 stretch before winning the final 2 games of the season. Like us, they yo-yo'd much of the season. From near the end of July, they did this. won 6 of 7 lost 5 of 6 won 5 of 6 lost 4 straight won 3 straight lost 2 won 4 lost 5 of 7 won 12 of 16 lost 6 of8 won 2 We were not the only inconsistent team in the AL, this year.