moonslav59

It would only matter, if we try hard to win it all while we reset. (I can't see that being very realistic.)

Plus, many of our top farm prospects were injured or too far away from the bigs.

I've never been high on Chavis. I don't think his bat is good enough for 1B or OF, and his defense has always been his weak spot (that and Ks). I think his best shot is 2B and back up corner IF. Don't mess him up by making him learn OF. I could see 1B: Devers, 2B: Chavis, 3B: Dalbec, SS: Bogey. Maybe Devers plays 1B vs LHPs and 3B vs RHPs.

Oh, I agree. I find myself defending Ben often, but I try to always point out that he made some major blunders. (I try to avoid blaming those on LL, except the Bobby V choice.) I also think the way Ben left the farm is a major reason for DD's better record, and had Ben stayed, he'd have traded several prospects and had better success than those 4 years. A ring? Who knows? 3 division titles? Who knows? I think they both did a good job. Ben did not inherit the greatest farm, but he had a solid core of young studs at relatively low costs. I think his budget was tighter, too. DD was given more of a free reign until summer 2019.

He kept Devers & Beni (and DHern). Those two were right behind Moncada in our prospect rankings. Both were called up rather quickly, so that also affected our farm rankings. That being said, I think trading a couple dozen of our top prospects and keeping 2-3 of the top 25 is closer to "decimation" than a normal "harvest."

For a long time, I expected Devers to end up at 1B. I'm not so sure anymore. If I was thinking of moving him, I'd feel him out, first. If it looks like it might bother him (and nothing seems to bother this kid) I might keep him at 3B. I wouldn't mess with the Devers Mojo. notin's point about trading Dalbec makes sense, even though I really like the kid and think his bat will turn out better than Chavis (not saying much). 1Bmen are a dime a dozen, and hopefully we'll stop overpaying for mediocre 1Bmen FAs. Dalbec at 2B doesn't excite me, either. I do wonder what his trade value is. If we can't get much for him, I'd hold on and see what shakes out. I remember Bogey looking better at SS his 3rd year, then taking a step back, so maybe the Devers to 1B idea is not decided, yet.

So, basically, Theo & Ben planted a 3 year crop. What was planted for the next GM? Is there a future's market for this crop?

Wow, I'm really liking these farmer analogies!

So, to you, his biggest sin was extending Sale and re-signing Eovaldi?

To me, what we got in return is important but is a separate issue. Just because we get great returns for prospects traded does not change the fact that the farm was totally emptied (in my scenario). One can argue it was worth it, but the farm would still be empty.

Attendance went down about 100,000 this year, and the ring year, 2018, was down from 2017. (We also missed 2 home games for going to London.) Our attendance in 2012, 2014 and 2015 was nearly identical to 2013. Sox fans will support the team. Most tickets are bought way before the season starts or is half over. I'm not sure fans need to think we have a chance at a ring every year, but they want to see some sort of excitement (offense?) or a decent product, as long as there is a hope we are getting better. Seeing some fresh, young faces may not be all that bad. I'm also not so sure a JBJ-less Sox team will finish 20 out next year. Now, if we trade JD, and some pitchers have surgery, then yes-maybe. I may be different from most fans, but I'd rather see a shorter period of rebuilding, even if it means having an awful 2020 season. I don't want us to suck, but if we make some good trades for some top young talent, my optimism will overpower my dislike for seeing us lose a lot of games in 2020. If it takes 2 years to get back to a top 4-6 team, I'm okay with that, too. I do agree with you on the mediocrity thing. trying to stay mediocre, while rebuilding, might just extend the time it takes to get back to the top.

Well said. I will say, I do not think we should trade guys like Barnes and Beni, who just came off somewhat down years. If Barnes looks good to start 2020, maybe look to get something nice for him in July. Beni is under team control through 2022, so he's different, but I might still look to trade him next summer, if the offer fits our needs. Sell high candidates might be Walden & Taylor (still pre-arb), but I'm fine with keeping both for 2021 and beyond. Stretching out Pedey's deal might be a good idea, but if we want to start spending big after 2020, it might be best to just bite the bullet and get out from under his cost all at once- or renegotiate it after 2020.

Bill Mueller. What a fun guy to watch. (BTW, for those who just love hating on the "selfish" Manny, how about when Manny sat out the final game to make sure his teammate, Mueller, would win the batting title?)

I, for one, am fine with our approach. I may think DD went a bit too far, but he wanted to make sure we had a rock solid ring roster, and he got us there. I'm fine with a couple down years used as collateral. Just get us back to the top again in 3-4 years and keep bring a couple rings a decade and I'll accept anything in between.

For 2 years of control, I'm pretty certain we'd get top 20 or top 10- maybe a top 25 and a top 50.

I agree. If more players learned to use the shifts to their advantage, teams would stop using it against them. I'm not sure that's going to happen anytime soon. Bell is right, though, and as more and more players swing for the fences every AB, their out locations become more predictable.

I'm not sure what to read into anything.

When I saw Price's only 7 IP game was in the middle of April, I thought about how the Sox must not have viewed him as needing to be babied at the start of 2019. Something happened during the season that changed the plan..

None actually happened with our only true closer: Workman, so one could argue we had zero 7 IP from DP, 1 from set-up and 1 from our true closer. None even ended with Barnes.

Done.

The following players are the highest paid contracts in MLB history. How many have rings during those contracts? All over $150M total. Red= Ring Trout, Harper, Stanton, Machado, ARod ('08-'17), Arenado, ARod ('01-'10), Miggy, Pujols, Cano, Votto, Price, Kershaw, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Jeter ('01-'10), Mauer, Heywood, Teixeira, Verlander***, Felix H, Strasburg, Posey, Altuve ('18-'24), CC Sabathia ('09-'15), Chris Davis, Manny, Kemp, Tulo, Tanaka, Lester, AGon, Ellsbury, Miggy ('08-'15). *** Not with team that signed him

They haven't won it all in a long time either, but your point is a good one. If the Dodgers win this year, does that mean it proves some big market moves are needed?

Let me ask you and the board this, assuming we reset. Let's say we keep everyone but JBJ and have no money to spend on anyone else. Do you the think the majority of fans or board members would think we have a "good chance" at making the playoffs with that team? If yes, I'm not sure the chances are all that high. If the answer is yes, wouldn't we be prolonging the "rebuild" and return to greatness by not moving sooner to deal some of our 1-2 year control players to improve the future at the expense of maybe lowering our odds of making the playoffs from 40-50% to maybe 20-25%? Would fans be okay, if they really liked the prospects or young players we got back in trades, knowing it might take 2-5 years for those players to make big impacts? I'm not saying those are the only choices or possibilities, but I do think fans are pretty forgiving when hope is higher.

In theory, it would be great, if we could master such "small market moves," and then make very few "big market moves" only when needed and only in strict moderation and for highly selective players (like Betts).

So, if we traded every single prospect, but it led to a ring, you wouldn't call that one part of the team, the farm, decimated?