moonslav59

Maybe- maybe not, but we'll be more competitive than we would have with just a comp pick and Price's $32M x 2 still dragging us down. Plus, the idea would be that the reset would have to happen in 2021, so we'll be way better than a 2021 team in the midst of a reset. I have faith in Bloom. He can spend the precious dollars we have opened up now well. We lose JBJ's contract next winter, and assuming we will be able to spend over the tax line after a reset, like we always have, I think it could happen in 2021. More likely, 2022 is the year, but not resetting would have, IMO, set us back 2-3 more years.

The clincher in ^that^ was "if the idea was to stay highly competitive for several more years". No, that wasn't going to happen. We weren't going to be able to keep him for 2020 and be highly competitive in the future too. However, I did explore the idea of keeping Mookie & Price for one more year to make a last-gasp run at a successful season in 2020. While that's something I could have lived with I have to acknowledge that what's happened was the smarter thing to have done. Again, what you want vs. what you need. Ugh. That makes more sense, to me, than wanting to keep Betts, then resign him without resetting, but getting nothing for Betts and still having Price's full contract on the books for 2 more years after 2020 would have made the rebuild more painful and much more difficult. Verdugo, alone, should be much better than any comp pick we might have drafted. Downs and Wong just jumped our farm rankings up a few notched- making our extended future look a little brighter.

If they extended Mookie and tried to reset in 2021, we'd be worse off than now. We'd have all kinds of holes with no cash to spend. Maybe we could look to reset after Price's deal expired, but that's 3 years. Maybe we'd avoid the surtaxes, but I can't see how not resetting in 2020 and keeping Betts, it would be possible to stay highly competitive in the year we chose to reset.

The guy was a cheating, scumbag child molester.

I can't unclick it!

Agreed, and leading him off might take some of the drive to HR away. It should, anyways.

I'd rather trade Beni or Wong than play either anywhere but LF or DH (or 3rd C for Wong.)

We'll never know if a better deal would have been had at the deadline. Yes, Sox fans will forever wonder "what if?" as Betts goes on to finish a HOF career. The odds are against us (and any single team) from signing him next winter, but now that we will reset, we have the best chance we'd ever have to do it or sign other studs.

I'd rather pay Betts $420/13 than $380/10. The AVV is much lower, and if we front end load it, we could possibly trade him after 8-11 years.

Exactly. If were never going to pay him near what he will end up getting, this was the right thing to do. If we plan on spending large and long to have Betts long term, then resetting gives us the best opportunity to do so. Either way you view the issue, dealing him made the most sense. Does anybody really think we should have kept him, not reset, then pay him $35M+ per year plus a 50% tax for at least 1 year and probably many more, if the idea was to stay highly competitive for several more years? The taxes could change a $350M/10 deal to $520M/10 or more, if surtaxes occur.

Even if you think Price is worth $16M x 3 years at age 34/35, we broke even bu trading him for nothing. Sox fans would have loathed losing Betts for a comp pick for many more years than they will this trade. It sucks losing Betts, no doubt, but I seriously doubt any better deal was out there, and by re-setting we have a better chance of re-signing him than we had by keeping him for one more year and not resetting.

I must have accidentally checked it once, but I can't seem to uncheck it.

Yes, the Giants are famous for it.

I clicked off the check on multi quote response, but it still does it.

OK. I'm half blind. I didn't notice.

I often said the word "cliff" might be hyperbole, and that as long as we kept spending near the tax line, we might never be sub .500. To me, with such high expectations for 2019, it felt like worse than a cliff.

What was the post and response?

He was a 2 win player as a 23 year old in his first full season in the bigs. He had plus dWAR and plus oWAR. I think he'll be serviceable. So far, he's started like the beginning of JD Drew's career. Drew had some really great years sprinkled in an above average career. I'd take that all day in this type of trade. 2 win player in just 106 games. (2.2 fWAR) A pretty good record in the minors. 3.4 UZR/150 with 13 DRS in 756 innings. I'm optimistic he will improve- like most talented players do from age 24 to 27 or 28, but certainly his sample size is small enough to think he may flop or disappoint.

I'm fine with calling it a "speed bump" not a cliff, but my point was about those, here, that felt we'd never hit a speed bump, because Henry could and would continue to spend whatever is needed to keep us winning.

Once again you misquote some one. You presumed that Verdugo would be playing in Boston for five years. I think that is an assumption not supported by his record. So so players don't last that long on contending teams especially in the outfield at Fenway Park. Given his injury record I don't see him lasting two especially if he plays right field. You misquoted me. I said Verdugo had 5 years of team control. I never said he'd be in the bigs for all 5 or with Boston for all 5. If I had to guess, I'd say he will be in MLB for all 5 years and do pretty well.

I called him that before knowing he cheated with the Astros. I never blamed Mookie for what he did. He did what I'd do. I hope we get him back and even suggested we pay him $420/13. He is the greatest everyday player I have seen play for the Sox. I hope he retires here.

Nope.

Where did I presume any would be great?

It could be 100% honest but not happen.

You're right, the team we had on paper should not have produced that poor of a record. I did not expect a bad season, last year. Calling it "the cliff" was wrong, but it was t5he beginning of the down slide brought on by our inability to keep or replace Kimbrel, Kelly, Nunez and Pom. What caused that "inability?" It was the trading away of too many cost-controlled young players/prospects and the over-reliance of moderate to big ticket free agent signings. This created the writing on the wall that many here denied was there. Maybe the term "cliff" was and is hyperbole, and I often said I didn't think we'd ever get real bad as long as we kept spending just under the tax line, but the downturn is real and it is now. It wasn't a weak argument, then and it isn't now either. The system has changed to make it harder to spend your way to greatness, in fact it hampers high spending teams. Fans can keep saying, "Henry can spend enough to get us what we need," but the fact is is won't forever. Our history was to spend big, at times, go over the line, here and there, but we always had times where we lowered spending. It wasn't a weak argument to predict we'd do that again, especially after spending more than we ever did, only to see us miss the playoffs by a pretty wide margin. The rebuild is here. We will try to be somewhat competitive, this year, so I'm fine with saying this is not a cliff, and we were wrong using that term, but the reality is we just traded Betts and Price for pre-arb players and prospects. Call it whatever you want, but at least admit some of anti-cliff people got it horribly wrong, too.