moonslav59

It is kinda funny, if they laughed at BorA$$ saying "Nah, nah, nah, there is no better offer," but there was.

That's "THE" botch?

No Judge and the Yanks are looking at 4th place. No Judge and fried, the Rays may beat em out.

To me, the roster crunch talk is not all that important. If we lose Watson, Moran or even cut ties with Hicks, nobody should lose any sleep. We have enough pitchers with options to keep anyone looking okay to good in ST'ing on the 40 (or 26, if needed.) Crawford, harrison, Oviedo and even Sandoval all have options remaining. If Watson, Moran or Hicks, all with no options, are showing promise, we can keep 1,2 or all 3 and be okay. The everyday roster is a little more complicated. Nobody really knows if Masa can be parked in AAA all year, and that is a big slot on the 26, if forced. I'm not worried about the 40, as long as Eaton, Sogard and someone else I can't remember. Plus, we may trade someone for an infielder and change the whole debate.

That might be the best 13, not counting Hicks, who sucks, but maybe we keep One from Crawford or harrison starting in AAA, so we can have a longer look at Moran and or Watson. Keeping many options is usually the choice made- not the best 13. A lot depends on how these guys look in ST'ing, and of course injury issues.

Maybe we're arguing semantics, but is that a "botch?" If you are playing poker and have a good hand, and you think the other guy is bluffing, but he wasn't, and you lost, was that a "botch" or a well-calculated choice made on teh fact that you had a good hand?

I did find this on Over the Monster... If you’re wondering why Bregman wouldn’t give the Sox a chance to match Chicago, the answer seems to be primarily tied to the Sox’ refusal to grant him a no-trade clause. “Had the Sox granted him no-trade protection and negotiated more favorable deferrals, Bregman would still be with the team, according to a source familiar with the process.” (Pete Abraham, Boston Globe)

We did find out later, that DD almost traded him in summer 2019. Yes, we heard that offer was made. Then, we heard it was not. There was never an "all accounts" on this one, in terms of the specifics on what went down- only the in general, we messed up, badly.

That could be true, but calling a bluff, which turned out not to be bluff, automatically a "botch?"

Is thinking the idea that there was not a higher offer out there, but there was an example of "botching?" If that's your definition then okay, he likely "botched it," but to me it's only a botch, if you were prepared to go higher and win the negotiations but outsmarted/dumbed yourself and missed out on a guy you would have paid more for, okay maybe, bt even then, I'm not sure the term "botch" or "bungle" fits. They called a bluff and lost. If they were never going to go higher or make other concessions,then it doesn't matter. To me, that's the point. People can feel free to focus on other points, but to me trying to guess if an agent is bluffing is common occurrences and not necessarily a GM's botch, if they misguess. Does anybody have a shred of evidence that says Brez could have offered more or given any concessions to top the Cubs' offer?

Came around? My position has not changed one bit. 1. I'm not certain Brez botched anything. 2. Neither are you. 3. If he did, it's concerning, but may not have mattered anyway, if we were never going to up the offer, add a no trade clause or defer less money- whichever might have been needed to get Breggie to yes. I still feel the exact was as before. I never said "all accounts" were wrong. Not even close. Please don't become like the mind-misreading Ole Red.

Yes, I was surprised.

Often differing reports come out years later. Certain parties may never reveal what really happened, especially the ones in the know.

Well, for one thing, there was never an "all accounts" storyline, except maybe in Red's world. I guess it didn't really change recently when Betts made some statements about being surprised when he was traded and how he really wanted to stay in BOS, but as time goes by there are often new tidbits of information from other or new sources that give another side of the story.

I feel like the level of player we need at 2B or 3B necessitates giving high value to get return high value. Of the 4 OF'ers, dues to years of control and all around skill levels, I think Duran ends up being the one most likely to be traded. The rotational depth is harder to rank, and the lower rank means lower return in value. I'm not for trading Bello, but for the right return, I would. I'd rather trade Crawford, Sandoval, oviedo or Harrison to Tolle or Early, but I doubt we can get a good enough infielder for one of them.

Look how often the whole Betts situation was "reported." The narrative changed several times, and did just recently, once again. Why should I believe accounts, even if it looks like "all accounts."

Agreed. We will not be adding 2 infielders, unless mayer is traded, and that's not happening either. My point was on adding Paredes and Suarez. Even then, if an OF'er was traded for Paredes, Suarez would DH, Paredes at 3B and Mayer at 2B (or Mayer 3B/Paredes 2B.)

I'm really not sure what to think on Shaw and Baty.

They said this was the only time they ever chose the later date. They wanted a weekday.

Same ole - same ole rag.

No. See how easy it is to actually answer.

The idea is that we if we could get to even on offense - not "losses"- maybe the pitching boosts us high enough.

BTV has Mayer worth more, but I disagree with that. 0.001% chance we get him, but maybe somebody is out there we don't know about. I used to think KMarte was the only solution.

The opt out made the no trade clause less important, last year. I happen to think it was an essential aspect of Breggie's demands. I could be wrong. If we could never give that to him, then the rest is kinda moot. (It still matters, if Brez is a clown, and it could matter the next close talks we are in, but in this case, Breggie was a goner, when we said no to the no trade clause.) The same might be said about the deferred money. That might have been an unmovable object on JH's demand. Maybe not.

I'm deeply concerned about our offense, but I also think we should not undersell the fact that teams can win in a variety of ways, and we greatly improved our rotation. I know some think rotations are over-rated, and maybe I am one who thinks they are worth more than they really are. While Contreras is certainly no Big Papi or Manny or even JD or Devers, he is a decent offensive player. While he's a little older than Breggie, he's done way better in the last 3-4 years than Bregman, and yet all we hear about is losing Bregman, how we lost Bregman and Willson is hardly mentioned. Last 3 years: .817 Contreras (127 OPS+)/ .796 Bregman(121)/ .827 Alonso (130) Last 2 years: .813 Contreras (129 OPS+)/.791 Bregman (121)/ .830 Alonso (133) Of course, I'd rather have Alonso than Willson, but he's still pretty good, but you hardly ever talk about him, unless we point it out to you. He's better than Abreu and Casas, who you mentioned. Duran has better numbers, too. No, we don't have the bat to protect Anthony. We didn't last year, and he did okay. Don't say Breggie protected him, because Willson is close enough to Breggie. We agree we need a bat. We need a 2B/3Bman, too. This one is cheaper, and so this is the one we fill before day one, IMO.