moonslav59

Cots does... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WWRsQNsGZkWuJZwlY8--xVBXMJGjh230D45KiHTHuvY/edit#gid=1520401900

Dalbec doesn't need bailing out.

So is Barnes.

Yes, he has, but we've seen this before. He'll likely keep his roster spot for 2021, but in no way does this lessen our need to make some serious pen additions this winter.

I disagree. We do not need to fill every slot to be competitive, and to me, it makes the most sense to identify the slots we need filled that are most likely to be filled adequately from within the system, and which ones are least likely. I have more faith in Dalbec and Chavis at 1B than Duran &Wilson in CF or Pivetta, Weber and Seabold at SP'er. I have more faith, although certainly not a lot more, in Arroyo, Chavis, Munoz (Chatham) at 2B than anyone we have to fill JBJ and maybe Beni's hole in the OF or the 6-7 open slots on the pitching staff. At minimum, we have about 10-12 open slots: CF OF 2B 1B SP SP RP RP RP RP (SP/RP) (RP) With "only" $60-70M to spend, we won't be getting anybody all that great, if we try to fill all these slots with roster additions. We have to choose the best chances of in-system fill-ins. Now, that doesn't mean we can't or won't sign some veteran journeyman 2Bman at a low cost to bridge us to the hopes that Downs will be ready by 2022. Maybe we can find a 1B/2B player or a 1B/OF type that would fill 2 slots and allow more money to be spent on 2B, but to me, other than Dalbec at 1B, I think 2B is our next best chance at being adequate with what we got.

I think, if he identifies a player he sees as being part of our extended future, he may pounce on one big signing. Then, he'd complement that signing with some moderate, role-filling signings and a few attempts at finding some "diamonds in the ruff." If we assume he has a spending budget of $60-70M, there certainly is enough roster slots needing upgrades or filling to decide to sign 10 guys at $6-7M each. He could try to limit most to 1 or 2 year deals to keep future flexibility as we learn more about which, if any, prospects appear to be capable of filling some of the key slots we have open, now and will have open as more players are losing team control. I think Bloom will likely keep $8-12M for summer spending, and will sign one guy to a decent deal ($12-22M/yr) and then use the remaining $40-50M to sign 5-8 players at relatively low prices.

Agreed. I only listed Peraza as a possible option, but he looks less and less possible. Lin may be non-tendered but may still end up as AAA depth. I've never been high on Chatham, and having him as minor league depth makes more sense than counting on him as winning a slot on the big club, but there is a chance he improves and ends up helping. Thanks for pointing out Arroyo. I'm not sure why I forgot him. The 2B battle will likely come down to Arroyo, Chavis and Munoz with the hope that Downs takes over by late 2021 or early 2022. Of course, nobody could shine, and we have to go 2B hunting during or after 2021, when, thankfully, Pedey's deal expires.

...and that's with no Betts or Price payments!

He's already started rebuilding the farm, despite our not jumping in the team farm rankings. Let's see what we get for those PTBNL, but adding Downs, Potts and a few others will help, and getting some team controlled years from Verdugo should help our longer term plans. I'm curious to see Bloom's spending tendencies, this winter, when for the first time, he should have a spending budget 3-4 times as large as he has ever been given.

Yes, and of those highlighted in red "may" be part of the 2021 team, but not likely as a significant net plus. More likely, they would just be innings eaters with net negative input. These guys would look fine in AAA, with the best ones being called up when needed, but we need better to be considered "competitive" on paper, and this is while assuming pretty good health from our top 6-7 pitchers- something I find hard to imagine.

I'm not sure anyone has said they think we will continue reduced spending beyond this reset year. Plus, it's not like we still aren't spending a lot. Even our projected 2021 of $70M below the budget line, with no additions, would still be spending more than many teams and way more than the Rays have spent.

I agree. Our pitching staff is a huge "pile,"especially down roster. The few young, bright hopes we have in the system are farther away than 2021. DHern is about the only real hope for anything great from our youth in 2021. Assuming we get anything approaching solid seasons from Sale, Eovaldi, ERod, Perez and Barnes is a stretch, for sure, but even that is only 5 guys. Add DHern & Valdez, certainly both not being sure bets and we might, if super lucky have a staff foundation of 6-7 pitchers for 2021. That leaves 6-7 gaping holes with this "pile" as the only current in-system hopes and prayers: Pivetta Taylor Brewer Weber Seabold Brasier Walden Mazza Brice Covey Hall Kickham Stock Springs Triggs McGrath Poyner Shawaryn Youthful prayers: Houck Mata Ward Feltman Sure, one or two may earn a slot in the top 14-15, but realistically, none should be counted on to be anything but AAA depth.

Well said. I will add that it seems like nothing adversely affects Devers' mental state. He reminds me a little of Manny- not the clownishness, but the calmness, determination and ability to blur out distractions and not let a few failures affect your next AB.

It's not unreasonable to think we need to add 6-7 pitchers to our top 13-14 staff. While it might be hyperbole to call that a complete overhaul, it is, in fact, a major overhaul that is needed. Sure, guys like Weber, Brewer, Mazza, Taylor and others can be counted "in the mix," but those are the kinds of pitchers you want slotted 15-20 not 11-14. I'm not saying we will add 6-7 pitchers expected to be on the opening day roster, but IMO, that's what we need to be competitive in 2021. Yes, if everyone is healthy, maybe we could get by with 4-6 additions, but we know better, and we know Sale won't be ready opening day.

You mean the "golden" shower DD left Bloom? At least Ben had a nice team on paper, that many felt should have competed in at least 3 of those 4 years. Having Valentine thrusted on him for one year counts for something, too. If Bloom's years as our GM help set the stage for a ring 2 years after he's replaced, I'd be fine with that, too.

I'm not sure why those 3 years need to be mentioned as "skewing" anything. Those 3 years helped lead DD to great success and were part of determining how sucky both teams were vs how successful both teams have been since 2008. Of course, there are excuses for why the Sox sucked for 3 years and the Rays for 2 since 2008, but in terms of looking at both teams, minus rings won, which of course is a huge measure of success, both teams look pretty even since 2008, in terms of regular season success vs sucking.

In my opinion, there would be no scenario where I'd choose to sign Price, this winter, at $32M/2. Even as a "place holder" or "bridge" to 2023, it would make little sense. Trading him had to be viewed as a net plus by Bloom & Co. And, I think the Dodgers would have preferred not having to take him. I wonder what the talk was like had he not been included. Betts straight up for Verdugo, Downs & Stripling or Gonsolin or Graterol/Maeda)?

No necessarily planning on re-signing Betts, specifically, but knowing it was an option or knowing we could sign a player or players equal to what we would have needed to sign Betts plus the $16M saved from Price. We don't know just how much that Price savings was, in terms of making the Betts deal or not. Many here feel like it was dumb trading Price and paying so much of his deal, but to me, I think it was a plus. I don't think the Dodgers were insisting on including Price. He was "forced" on them. I'm not down-playing your point about the Sox not wanting to re-sign Betts at what the expected amount would be. Certainly, that could have been the major reason for dealing him away, but the need to reset in 2021 was a huge priority, too. The wish to clear budget space (via Price) for 2021 and 2022 was also a significant factor, too as well as rebuilding a youthful core with Verdugo and Downs. We all probably have varying ideas on what the importance assigned to different aspects of the trade are, and we'll likely never know what the levels of importance were to the Sox brass, but I do think it's not unrealistic to think the idea of not being able to or wanting to re-sign Betts might not have been over 50% of the reason. It might have been the leading reason but not the deciding factor, by itself. Allow me to speculate: 30% Not thinking we would ever re-sign Betts 25% Needing to reset in 2020 (hard to do with Betts AND Price on the ledger) 25% Wanting to rebuild a youthful core with Verdugo and Downs 15% Wanting to dump half of Price's 2021-2022 salaries at ages 35-37 5% Other minor factors (No way am I pretending to know how Bloom & Co. viewed these aspects, but it it unreasonable to thing the first line was under 50% of the total reason?)

Not sure what that has to do with TB's success over the last 13 seasons. As for Ben, he got one ring-same as DD, but he left a way better foundation for the next guy than DD did, so maybe that helps outweigh those 3 sucky years a little bit, anyways.

"Top tier" might not have included Gonsolin, but probably it did. I'm not sure the Dodgers would have wanted a player I suggested we "throw in" to change the return from Downs to Gonsolin. Maybe even DHern would not have been enough.

True, but maybe last year his stock was higher. Someone like Duran or Barnes might have been more wanted.

That's a huge "if" and the main reason I would not sign him at $16M x 2. Of course, there's a significant chance he proves me wrong. Knowing what you know, now, if you were the Sox GM and had $70M to spend this winter, would you use $16M on Price on a 2 year deal? Knowing he turns 36 during next season and will have a total of 359 IP over his previous 4 seasons?

Like I said, I get the reason, but we'd have sucked over 162 games, too. It's not because players missing time due to the pandemic, either. Other teams were hurt more by that than the Sox, and we still sucked more. I can see why they changed the rules and it makes sense, but we are clearly one of the worst teams in MLB, right now, and we will not be getting the usual rewards for sucking so badly. I'm not sure how they decided to weight 2019 vs 2020, but to me, 2020 numbers should count more, despite being less games. Did they change the draft order after the strike shortened seasons?

More suck than success? That's highly debatable. Sure, count their first years of existence against them, and 10 years of sucking out of the gate was worse than it should have been (no season with over 70 wins), but since 2007 they have had winning seasons in 11of 13 years with only 2016 being really bad. 12 losing seasons 11 winning seasons Yes, technically more sucking than success, but they only started as an expansion team in 1998. If you just discard their first 2 years, the script is flipped. 2008-2020 Wins 1138 Yanks 1130 Dodgers 1096 Cardinals 1078 Red Sox 1071 Rays 1038 Angels 1028 Braves 1027 Guardians 1025 Rangers 1024 Cubs 7 less wins at a fraction of the budget gives some of us hope that Bloom can do better with more money.

It could be more about wanting to reset in 2020 and dumping half of Price's deal, so we'd be better situated for 2021 and beyond- maybe even to re-sign Betts, despite many here thinking that was all but impossible.