moonslav59

I never said or implied he puts winning above profits. I expect most business owners put profit near or at the top of their priorities. BTW, Tom Werner said "full throttle." I'm not even sure he was lying, as he might have actually believed they were going to spend more. If he knew they were not and said it, I'd agree he was a liar or dishonest.

soxprospects.com no longer lists them as beginning the season on the IL, for whatever that is worth. If Sandoval is expected to start the year on the IL, what is his trade value worth?

The severe budget restraints on Bloom were real, and he kept losing top players, year after year. Even when he lost players that were no longer great, the contract money was not returned to the budget. Brez has been allowed to spend more, and it shows. Still, maybe restraints, like NTCs hampered his ability to spend like he wanted. Some like to blame Cora, and we did win less that the Pythagorean estimated. The blame game has been on full display for years. Our GMs have made enough bad choices to be worthy of large chunks of blame- I agree.

I'm not buying the returning Yankee pitchers point. I've seen our hopes dashed enough to not count on that. Name the 3 potential 30 HR Yanks. I'm not so sure BAL is as good as some think, but I do think they underperformed, last year and COULD bounce back. I think TOR is #1 and NYY, SEA and BOS are closely bunched. It's also not as bad having to play in the toughest division as years past. We don't play them as much.

It's what he thinks that makes it dishonest. The key component is saying something you know is wrong...not what others know or think is wrong. He may be deliberately lying. I think he may actually think many of those teams had a good chance. I have said before that I think 2021 set the team back, because it convinced management they could compete while being cheap. It took a few years to sink in, and now they are spending more.

Okay, but maybe the other two? I've never been all that high on Eaton, and I'm not sure we need him for OF depth. BTW, Eaton's Home and Away splits in larger sample sizes than Rodgers with HOU: .458 Home .638 Away Maybe he's really a great batter and KC held him back! LOL

I think we'll be better than 85 wins, but I know I am biased. We lost a lot of our best hitters. We improved pitching and defense. With so many changes, it's hard to figure wins gained or lost.

Sounds right, but could number 1 be true?

I get that. My point was that he may be better than some on the 40. When you have guys like Eaton, Sogard, Seigler and maybe even Monasterio, the bar is not set very high. Hell, less than a week ago, we thought DHam might be starting vs RHPs at 2B.

It's hard to know what the true number is, and I'm not even sure the Sox know. Maybe the third line is the limit. We may add salary at the deadline. We've traded away a lot of pitching depth, already. We've added some back in trades and the Suarez signin pushed almost everyone back a notch, but I'm not sure we can afford to trade away Sandoval. Last year we had nice depth too and traded away Priester- later we had to trade for D May and ended up staring de Leon in a game, too. We also added early and Tolle to the roster, when very few expected them to be needed in 2025.

This is no small change in trends. The biggest beefs on this and past sites has been over the loss of our stars to free agency. Some of the talk focused on our inability to lock up Betts, Bogey and others before they became FAs. Well, now we have done it to 4 of our best young players- 5, if you count Crochet. I'd call Devers #6, but we saw what we did there. Since DD left, we've signed two players to long term contracts, and neither was at or very close to top pay: Story & Masa. Now, we just signed Suarez- the first large and long FA pitcher signing since Price. Sure, big picture we are still lacking in some areas. I'd like to see the no giving a NTC relic banished. I'd like to see more creativity with deferred payments but not if it lets a key target walk away. I'm really not upset about choosing to never grossly overpay for top talent. I wasn't for paying even what we offered Bregman, but the reported offer to Alonso was embarrassing. I'm not sure what is worse: thinking it was a fair or thinking it was a competitive offer. Either way, we looked pretty stupid. We've spent a long time overhauling the roster, and with the addition of Breslow, we have quickly transformed the team into a pitching dynamo from top to near bottom of the system. I'm not sure any team has ever turned a corner that sharply. We look at our offense and cringe or question, depending on how optimistic or pessimist we are, but almost every good player we have is locked up for 3+ years. When has that ever happened to a good Sox team? There are some things to admire about this management team, if we look for it. We all know about the bad and the ugly.

We did subtract a lot, even not counting Devers, but in terms of AAV added, we have to be top 3-5, but we must believe JH has shown an empty wallet. When you count what STL is paying Gray and Contreras, the combined AAV of our actual salary paid roster is even higher than 7th.

He may fall way short of his career numbers that were aided by his games in COL, but some of these other infielders we have have not had much more offensive success than DHam. My point was to say he may end up being better than some of the guys on the 40, now. The bar is set pretty low (on offense) and Rodgers has a GG on defense, so he doesn't even have to be equal on offense to maybe pass a couple/three guys up on the depth charts.

You've said this many times, but you assume you know that JH shares the same definition of the word "winning" as you do. he would have to for it to be a lie. A lie is saying something you know to be false. 1. He may believe we built teams good enough to win, even by your definition. 2. He may think winning means 82-80 or going into a season with a legitimate shot at making the playoffs. Then, it's not a lie. Yes, he "has the resources," as many owners do, even some with lesser revenue streams, so using that point does not do anything for me. The lowest revenue team's owner could easily double his spending in one year and maybe 3X or 4X and on and on... They choose not to. Yes, they may not be telling the fans"We are committed to winning," and that is a difference, but JH is spending huge amounts of money. He's spending more than 75% of the teams and all I hear is "cheap" and "empty." If it's all hyperbole, I'll shut up and take it the way it was meant, but when I call it out, you guys often double down. We both agree we should spend more, yes, yes, YES! We both think he could and should and wish he would spend more, but he ID spending more- just not enough for most of us. I've seen a shift, of late, and I have no issue hearing "too late" or even "too little- too late." I expected bigger moves after losing Devers and hearing talk about the need for a big bat. I've never hears anyone from the Sox say they felt Contreras met that criteria, so at least they didn't try to pull that one over on us. We failed to get that big bat. We are used to seeing Sox ring teams with 2 big bats. We failed to get a top 2B/3Bman and settled on Durbin & I K-F, instead. I'm not happy with the choice, but I do think we got better from 2025 by a little more than you seem to think. We are 7th in spending and 7th in projected team fWAR. How's that for a criteria? If we were 5th in spending, we'd probably be a top 4 contender, because 5th place is $40M away! (Alonso away) There are various ways to build a winning team, and this is not like any WS-winning or attending Sox team I have seen. I've never seen pitching like this. Top 3 SP'ers, SP depth, top 3 RP'ers. The defense might be close to the best I've ever seen a Sox team have on the roster. It's not sure who will play and where, but we can likely put the best defensive team I have ever seen a Sox team have on the field and still have a GG'er as depth. The offense is a huge concern but not without promise.

His numbers w COL did show that. I heard the same about Story. The numbers from HOU are barely large enough to even mention. \ Maybe we'll call him up, only when we play at COL.

100%. I've made some hefty offers on BTV, so I'm not shy on giving to get. I went into this winter hoping we spent every ounce of resources (money and prospects) on just 3 players- maybe 4. Quality over quantity. We spent years building up the quantity (or depth.) It was time to fill 3-4 needs with top quality players. Now, we see massive depth moves, and I'm not against 3 for 3 trades that improve depth where we need it, but we came up a little short on the 3-4 quality players I hoped for. (Maybe I should have said 1-2 high quality and 1-3 quality) Suarez- high quality and filled one of our top 3-4 needs: check. Contreras- quality but not the high quality big bat I wanted: reluctant check on the quality ledger. Gray- quality but we needed a 2B/3Bman and or powerbat: reluctant check that the cost may have prevented us from doing better at power bat and or 2B/3B. Durbin: a decent get at a need slot. (He may be quality, but he's not proven anything, yet.) Oviedo- into the 5th player range, and again, we got Suarez and Gray, so...??? (Okay, we used SP depth to get Durbin and Gray and Contreras, so we needed some replenishment.) Okay with this move, but no quality "check" given. I K-F: decnet move but not high quality. Up to 6, now Infield depth: #7-8-9... Once again we go for quantity over quality, when we really just had 3-4 major slots to fill and fill well. That being said, we did get better and as Cora said, "We are a more complete team, now."

I'm not sure the revenue vs spending thing is the only measure than counts, and I agree it is important and telling, but my guess is we are above #20 now, even on your chosen, one and only number that counts. Look, I wanted Alosno. The offer was a joke. It was sick. We did end up signing Suarez who might and should do more for the team. Small and mid market teams dont do that. They also dont trade for 2 guys making $20M each. They don't sign utility guys to $6M. They rarely extend 4 young stars to many year deals. Spotrac has us 7th- just $3M for the Padres. We are maybe 20th in revenue to spending. That sucks, but that doesn't mean we aren't spending or that JH is a liar.

Okay, I'm going to just assume your and Fred's use of the term "empty" is hyperbole. I never said we were a "mid market team." Never. Our market is top 10. Our revenue it top 10. Our spending was sickenly low for too many years, but it has not been for 2 years. Of course, much of the spending is replacing lost contracts but the spending has been increasing significantly and many trends that we've all bitched about for years have changed. Of course I want more spending and the reasons given make sense, including the point about revenue vs spending ranking, but why say our spending is empty or that we spend like a small market team? It's just not true. Worse, the untruths keep being repeated. We are not spending like a small market team. For a while we spent like one- or spent like a midmarket team, but we are not small or mid market.

I'd agree that 5+ for 4 years is pretty damn valuable. I'm not sure what the "boatload" was demanded, but I'd be thinking about some very good prospects to offer.

Wow. Two sample sizes in the 60's and he's a "nobody."

It wouldn't make sense to me, either, but I'd like to know who were on said boat.

OMG! That was my mocking point! BTW, name even one mid market team that spend like we have in the last 2 years. Cue sound of cricketts.

Of course we are not "small market." It was a jab at you know who. Again, the wallet is not empty. We spent more than over 2/3rds of the teams and maybe 3/4 this winter and maybe even since the Devers extension. We signed our first long term deal in a while. We extended 4 kids to long term deals in the last 2 years. We extended Deves and crochet to big deals. While the Buehler deal was yet another one and done deal, it was for $21M - the 3rd highest pitcher AAV in Sox history. 2 year deals to Gio, Sandoval and Chapman. We've swung a missed on a few, but we are swinging and spending. Yes, I agree we could and should spend more. I agree the revenue vs spending ranking is troubling and telling, but the wallet is not "empty," unless you mean right now, after spending so much.

It's good to see more promising players added to the infield depth and mix.

Ummm 4 arb years (ages 25-28)