moonslav59

Watch this game go 18 innings!

I thought they "went home" when we got double swept when we needed wins the most.

This game is the perfect summary of our season.

He did lead the team in bWAR by quite a bit. 6.9 Betts 5.7 ERod 5.2 Bogey 5.1 Devers 3.4 JD 3.1 Workman He's scored 134 runs. I guess great is subjective, but his season is pretty close.

Porcello is certainly gone. JBJ is very likely to be traded or non tendered. I'm not sure we trade JD & Betts, but if we trade one, I can see the reasoning to trade both (and more- like 2021 or 2022 FAs Workman, ERod & Barnes).

I'm not sure I used the word "ruin" first. I think I just said that in response to your comment that some of us said he ruined the farm. I think I have said, "nearly emptied" most of the time or "traded away almost the whole farm." I think I've been pretty clear all along about my position. I was fine with trading away a lot of our prospects. I wouldn't have gone as far as DD went, but I don't think I know more than DD or would have done better. His moves brought us a ring. That was the goal. I'm fine with what he did, but I knew all along there would be consequences. I find it strange you seem to pick on those of us who said there would be consequences at some point rather than those who said the farm would or could be rebuilt easily and quickly. That certainly hasn't happened. There were many who sugar coated the consequences and still are. Clearly some mistakes were made, even if just in hindsight, and that's the nature of evaluating GMs. DD did what he was brought in to do. We won a ring. This place would be a lot different had we not won last year. I'm thankful it worked. He built a great ML team. He sacrificed much of the future to do so-more than Theo did and way more than Ben did. They both won rings and left a decent to great farm for the next guy. DD did not. Those are facts. Call it "ruining" the farm, depleting or emptying it, or whatever, but regardless of how much of what you think DD did was right or wrong, there's no denying he left a much weaker farm than when he came here. BTW, it's not the "sole cause," but it is a major factor. Big contracts, some not given by DD, add to the problems. Changing rules and regulations have added to the problem, again, not DD's fault, but he is the only GM to get the 10 pick drop penalty for going over $40M over. Ben was the one who got us the international signing ban right as DD came to power, but he's done very poorly in that area- a usual big strength of this team in the past. He made some very good in-season trades, like A Reed, Nunez and Eovaldi, but the Buttrey-Kinsler deal seems to look pretty bad, tight now. BTW, I'm not sure what poster ever said DD's trades are the "soul cause" of our steep decline. I've heard more criticism on the Price, Sale and Eovaldi signings than the trading of prospects.

Betts RF Devers 3B Bogey SS JD DH Moreland 1B Vazqyez C Holt 2B Hernandez LF JBJ CF

Also, who will be the team leader in OPS? .942 JD .940 Bogey Can Vazquez reach .800? (He's at .796.) Can Betts reach 30 HRs? (He's at 29.) That would give us 4 guys over 30!

Probably a lot of chatter on the Cubs' blogs.

17 seasons from 2003-2019: 5 AL East Titles 5 Wild Card Entries 4 AL Championships 4 WS Championships (Only three 4th or 5th place ALE finishes)

PR might be part of the reasoning, but I think we make a legitimate offer to Betts, this winter, that is fair and generous. If he takes it, great. If he refuses, there will be no Lester-like debacle. To me, the main reason for making a solid winter offer is to know whether we should trade him or not. If he turns down what we think he's worth, it makes sense to trade him, even if maybe that offer would have turned out to be the highest, and we'd have gotten him anyway. Besides, nothing will stop us from offering the same deal after he becomes a FA. The Sox have a long history of accurately valuing their own players at the time the reach or near free agency, with the exception of Lester and maybe Lackey. I'd like to see us be a good team, next year, but I'd also be okay with hastening the return to glory by maybe trading away a piece or two to brighten our extended future. If we reset, I can't see us having a good chance at winning it all in 2020. I'm not saying we can't. We still have a solid core, and if health is on our side, we could look more like the 2018 Sox than the 2019 Sox, but my guess is, we wait until the deadline in 2020 to decide on trading JD and/or Betts and Workman. We may even look to trade players that will be FAs after 2021: ERod & Barnes, if we are already dismantling the team.

True, but Hembree is a non factor. He could pitch great or s***** his last 5-10 appearances of 2019, and it won't matter. If we need to non tender him to stay under, we'd do it with any late 2019 results.

Hembree's meager arb contract will not make or break the 2020 budget.

Highly speculative. H'es under contract next year. The Sox would have shut him down and put him under the knife, if they felt he needed it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the guy is still pitching.

A while back, but here it is: FAs after .... 2019 Porcello, Moreland, Pearce, Holt, Cashner, Owings (JD?) 2020 Betts, JBJ, Workman, Wright, Leon, (JD?) 2021 ERod, Barnes, Hembree, Vaz (option for '22) 2022 Price Eovaldi JD (if he didn't before) Beni Pedroia Vaz Marco Sale & Bogey signed for 2023+ Last Arbs: Devers, Johnson, Brasier

3 AL titles.

I didn't mean 5-6 rings, but I do think, looking at our roster and budget, once could have expected at least 5 years of a highly competitive team.

When you spent like we did last year, and by the way, we had less injuries than most teams, you expect a better record than this. Sure, things can all go wrong at once, and maybe one bad year would be okay, if the future looked brighter, but it looks worse.

I said it then; I said it for years before our first ring; I'll say it in 2020 and 2021. By 2022, we better have brighter skies.

I think Henry expected a 5-6 year window not 3, and that's part of the reason he soured on DD. The culture thing just added to it.

Look, I already said I was fine with ruining the farm to get a ring. I have no beef with DD. He got us a ring. That does not mean I have to sugar coat the consequences. He destroyed the farm. It's been bottom 5 for 3 straight years. I never said I could have done better than DD, but I certainly have the right to say I think he went too far. We'll never know if we'd have won a ring or not without Pom, Thornburg, Kinsler, Kimbrel or others. That's what a site like this is all about- debating the what ifs. I've been saying all along I do not think Henry will keep spending 10-300% more than other teams, but it doesn't "please" me to hear him finally say the over-spending is going to be slowed or stopped. It's just reality. I'm glad we have an owner that was willing to do what it took to win us several rings. I wish he'd keep spending what it takes to keep us winning every year, but I don't think it's right to expect it, and part of me thinks we're being a little hypocritical for bashing the Yankees all those years for buying championships and then being more than fine with us outspending everyone else by tens of millions 2 years in a row, and then expecting that to continue, just because he's filthy rich and can afford to spend $500M on the team every year. I'm thrilled we won 4 rings in the last 2 decades. I went 3 decades with nothing. I often said, I'd be fine with 9 last places finishes for just one ring, and although my views changed after that first ring, I'm still fine with some down stretches, if it means we're working towards a long term plan of getting back to the top. (Plus, I don't think the cliff will be as bad as I once thought, but I'm fine with a couple to three years of no ring, as long as our future is looking brighter and brighter each year- that almost surely means our farm is getting better. I don't think DD was the guy to build up the farm. I don't think spending like maniacs for 2-3 more years would have been a great idea, either. The penalties incurred on the farm by maxing out year after year would have deepened the rebuilding process and lengthened the time needed to retool.

This isn't homerism. Why not answer my 3 questions? Plus, how are most GMs hired? By the team seeking who it wants or candidates going to the teams with openings? This whole story reeks of a untruths. I'd have said the same about the Yanks, Patriots and other winning teams I hate. People want to work for winners. Look, I'm not saying every soul in the world would want the Sox GM job, but there's no way what happened to Ben & DD is keeping anyone from being interested in the job.

MLBTR reports... Red Sox Planning Contract Extension Offer For Rafael Devers By Mark Polishuk | September 28, 2019 at 7:07pm CDT The Red Sox are preparing to offer Rafael Devers a long-term contract this winter, WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford reports. In general, most extensions aren’t discussed and/or completed until after the bulk of other offseason business has been completed, so more concrete news on this front might not surface until closer to Spring Training. It only makes sense that the Sox would look to gain some cost certainty over a player who has emerged as a huge force in 2019. Devers has hit .308/.359/.553 with 32 homers over 697 plate appearances, with a 131 wRC+ that ranks 13th among all qualified batters in baseball. There have been questions about Devers’ ability to stick as a third baseman, though he at least held his own defensively depending on the metric; he had a +3 UZR/150...

Yes, I'm speculating, but do you really think Ben's departure is making anyone hesitate to accept an invite to be interviewed for the Sox GM job? Do you really think DD's does? Do you really think anyone wants to avoid working for Henry and having a chance at glory? So far, all 3 GMs who worked for Henry have a ring and have the glory. Plus, the whole idea that execs go to the teams to ask for a job is probably a very rare happening. Teams seek out who they want, and I'd like to see one shred of evidence that someone the Sox asked about being interested said no.

Sources that may just be speculating.