moonslav59

I'm talking over 1.050 and 50 HRs! Yes, BLOW AWAY! He's still a couple years from peak prime, and his "rawness" is wearing off.

I would flip JD and Dalbec. Dalbec has "more to prove" than JD. I could see Cordero maybe not starting vs LHPs, but he should get a chance to show what he can do versus them. If he struggles, we could play EHern in CF vs lefties and Arroyo, Chavis or Marwin at 2B (batting them 9th).

I thought it was pretty clear I was comparing EHern to the Holt we saw with the Sox, not the much older one. I try to spell things out more clearly going forward.

There is still a real possibility that Devers can blow away his 2019 season. I'm more than just hopeful he can do that. I am fairly confident he will.

I'm hopeful Ottavino can win the job and do well. Our starters and pen should be much better than last year, so maybe we can reduce the amount of save opportunities available to blow.

You're welcome. My focus was on the top 6-7 in the line-up, but I think many are short-changing our 7-9 hitters. True, some other teams have deeper and stronger bottom of the orders, but our bottom 7-9 willbe better than most and maybe even better than 20-24 other teams. Vaz has a .798 OPS with 30 HRs in about 700 PAs from 2019-2020. That's a damn good 7-9 hitter. EHern is not a bad hitter at all. He should hit about .750. That leaves Renfroe of Cordero (off-handed) or Arroyo, Chavis or Marwin, if EHern plays CF. This may be our weakest slot in the line-up, but there is some hope it's not all that bad, and we have 5 guys to choose from as the hottest of them all.

While line-ups may not mean much, batting someone first or ninth means a lot more of less PAs for Kiki. In 2019, the number 1 slot had 241 more PAs than our # 9 slot.

Not sure, but fangraphs projected 87.

Holt cost $5.8Mover his last 2 arb years, so about $8M more, but nice try. (As a FA, Holt signed for $3.25M/1 for the Brewers after leaving the Sox.)

I'm fine with Bogey 4th and JD 5th. The modern theory is the 3 slot is no longer for your best or second best hitters- maybe not even 3rd or 4th best. That means Devers or Verdugo should bat second. They both bat lefty, so flipping them vs lefties or righties doesn't work, well. (One could argue flipping Bogey vs LHP and Devers or Verdugo v RHP in the 2 slot might make some sense.) I'm not big on the lefty-righty line-up philosophy, but having Verdugo (L) and Devers (L) 1 and 2 and Bogey ® and JD ® up 4 & 5 might not be ideal. Assuming we go "modern" and put someone like the Renfroe-Cordero platoon up 3rd (or Dalbec), is this what it might look like? 1. Verdugo L 2. Devers L 3. Renfroe R/ Cordero L 4. Bogey R 5. JD R 6. Dalbec R Would this look nicer? 1. Verdugo L 2. Bogey R 3. Renfroe R/Cordero L 4. Devers L 5. JD R 6. Dalbec R The idea of EHern up first, pushes the better hitters deeper into the line-up. (It's called "lengthening the line-up" to those not familiar with baseball terminology.) I'm seriously doubtful about the idea working. R EHern L Verdugo R JD L Devers R Bogey R/L Renfroe/Cordero R Dalbec R Vaz R Cordero/Renfroe or Arroyo/Chavis or S Marwin

Remember that clown poster on that ‘other site?’ He used to say the “manager needs to talk to ______ and tell him we need you to get on base more often.” (Like it’s that easy.)

In terms of wins each season, yes, but in terms of pre-season expectations for the following year and beyond, this is different.

He seems like Holt Plus!

Thanks for these updates. It's still very early, but it's better to see more good things going on than bad ones.

Did anyone see those two years as inevitable? Something out path was driving us towards? Maybe I missed that pulse. We had just come off a ring year in 2013, that many felt was a miracle or confluence of good luck, but I didn't get the sense that we were making moves for the "here and now" at the expense of the future, in fact, I got the sense a sizable amount of people thought we were not trying hard enough for the "here and now." Big difference.

There were a few posters (on that "other site") who preached gloom those off seasons before those seasons, but it didn't seem like something our philosophy was driving us towards. We were still spending big and had some rising young stars, a decent farm, and decent pitching until maybe 2015. The fire sales we had were summer choices, too.

It in no way is political. There were clearly two sides to the debate over whether the philosophy we chose to use under DD would lead to a down turn or not. I really don't care what it's called, but the word "cliff" was pretty much what most chose to call it and talk about. I don't think I was the one who coined the phrase, but it became the accepted term- like it or not. Am I wrong to notice that many of those who denied we'd have a "down turn" are now super sour, pessimistic or projecting doom & gloom, or at best less wins than many of those who expected a "down turn". Those who saw the writing on the wall, seem to be more optimistic, now. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, although nobody has tried to say I'm wrong on this point. Am I wrong? What's the big deal about calling those who thought the idea of a re-set and downturn "cliff deniers?" What's the big deal about calling those who expected a re-set and downturn "cliff dwellers?" (BTW, there were some who did not really take sides or were somewhere in the middle, or who said something like, "How can we know what will happen 2-4 years from now, so why worry or debate the issue, now?")

It speaks to a very specific time frame and a very heated debate about what the "win now" philosophy was doing to our future outlook. The time period many spoke of is here and now. I'm not sure why it should be a word that bothers anyone. You or others may think another word was or is more appropriate. That's fine. I use the word, because most here know what I'm talking about by just saying one word. Part of that debate centered on how long the "downturn" would last. (There, I changed the word for you.) Many stated things like, "We'll build the farm back up, like we always do (in no time was implied)." I disagreed on how quickly the farm could be rebuilt, due mainly to how the rules have changed since our glory days of farm building while still winning. I wanted to point out that I felt like our farm has been getting better at a faster pace than I imagined back in the days of that discussion, and the context of that discussion is needed, IMO. The trades we made, last summer helped. The Betts trade gave the farm a significant boost. That was not really expected back from 2017-2018. We got higher than expected draft picks last year and very high one coming up, this year. Our IFA signings have been flat for years.

Ok, I'll just say back from 2017-2019. I'm not sure why there is a need to "cancel" that word.

I'm not sure how that changes my point.

Not really. I was talking about a certain time period. Do you prefer another name for "it?"

It's simple: they want to put off the tax for one more year.

I totally agree. Even if we don't suck, we'll need to spend next winter.

It does "lengthen" the line-up, but goes against everything the new era line-up philosophies say to do.

That's what I think, too. I was kind of shocked we paid him that much, despite still being able to re-set. I'm sure Boras is part of the issue, too.