moonslav59

Did the extra rest Moreland got cause the injury?

I'd go $300M/10- maybe a little more, if we can lower the AVV- like $320M/12.

Yes, the attitudes changed because Bogey got 4 less ABs, and the whole team saw that it was a kick-back season. This stuff cracks me up. The reaching for any excuse is laughable.

Because we will be adding multiple year FA contracts to get good ones, drafting low and having restricted IFA pools for 2 more years. each draft affects more than just one year into the future, especially when you draft HS players often. We won't get a good closer on a 1-2 year deal.

My worry is that by putting it off 2 years, we may hurt the farm for 3-5 years. If each year we wait we add 2-3 years to the rebuild, is it worth it? (Not saying the math is correct, just a hypothetical.)

It's all that extra weight on his body type.

You said it in a lot less words than I ever did.

I can see this. I do think he had hope we wouldn't be the worst farm after 3 years.

He saw the writing late, then, because he wouldn't have extended Sale had he known we'd reset after 2019.

I can certainly see this position as having a lot of merit, but to keep Betts, we're talking putting off the reset until 2022. That's not unreasonable, but my guess is our farm will still be #30 by then, and we'll have a lot of other players leaving for the reset-- ERod, Workman, Barnes, JD...

I just turned 60, and I'm getting myself in the best shape I've been in about 15 years. I like the idea of being strong 3-8 years from now.I happen to think that the more we try to "win now" by spending and spending, the harder it will be to rebuild the farm, and to me, the farm is the best way to insure long term success, either by keeping some or trading some, when needed most. If Henry wants to spend 20-200% more than all other teams from here to eternity, that would certainly help us win more, and I'm not against that, but tehre are many ways to insure near constant success, and it's my opinion that having a decent farm is the best way. Just saying Henry can spend more and we will "sow the fields again" is easy. Doing it is hard. 3 years ago, I heard many posters saying we'd "build the farm back up" just like the old days. Well, 3 years have gone by and our farm has gotten even worse than before NOT better, let alone "rebuilt" to a decent standard. We have 2 or 3 guys, mostly 2-3 years away that may turn out very nice. The rest look like role players, at best. We will likely draft around 15th next spring and have a limited IFA pool, again. Great prospects don't fall down the draft board anymore due to signability issues. We haven't proven we can draft well with lower picks swince maybe the Betts draft. That was a long time ago, and until we prove we've improved our talent evaluation personnel, I'm thinking our farm will stay near #30 for a few more years.

The problem is, with the new rules in place for a few years, "sowing the filed" is way more difficult when your team is winning 3 years in a row and spending way over the tax line. Penalties, draft slots and limited IFA money all add up to us having the 30th ranked farm woth little hope in changing that by much, if we keep winning and spending.

7-10 less ABs by 3 guys (who are among the team leaders in OPS) is supposed to be a significant reason we sucked in April, and it carrier over all year. The IP variance is almost as meager.

I don't think the choices were to trade every notable prospect, except Devers & Beni or trade none. I'm not sure there's a single poster here that said trade none, yet we keep hearing (not from you) that anyone critical of all the trades wanted to "hoard" all the prospects. I don't even think it was Ben's long term plan to hoard them forever- but to strike a balance. Maybe saying he "destroyed the farm" is a little harsh, but we were ranked #1 by one service and between 3 and 6 by several others- now we are 30th by just about every service. What would you call that? We all knew we'd pay to some extent for trading so many prospects. I'm super glad he kept Devers & Beni, but to some varying degree in opinions, we all know we sacrificed some to a lot of the future to open a 3-5 year window of championship caliber teams.

To me, if I had to guess, I'd say it was more Cora's idea than DD's. DD was canned for other reasons, IMO, including leaving almost nothing in the farm and the way he was dealing with ownership and others in the organization not restgate.

Also, I don't draw a different conclusion on all this. I draw no conclusions. It very well might have made a difference. It very well might not have. The conclusions are total conjecture. Not that I've never used conjecture, but I just find this whole subject pointless. We had reasons to give these guys a tiny bit more rest in ST'ing. We started off slow and had several other slow points in the season despite the extra rest that should have helped us later. It didn't work out that way. Blame it on restgate, if you wish, but I think there were many factors involved in the huge drop off, and restgate seems like a 50-50 call to me.

It's obvious I was saying the conclusions are conjecture, and for you to pretend otherwise is very telling. FYI ABs 2018>2019 52 >42 Betts 50 >52 Devers 47 >43 Bogey 47 >40 JD 46 >47 Beni 46 >43 JBJ 45 >32 Moreland 39 >39 Holt 38 >38 Vaz 4 of these 9 players had the same or more ABs in 2019 STing. The ones that did not had these less: 10 Betts 7 JD 7 Moreland 4 Bogey 3 JBJ If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were joking to think these minor variances had such a major impact.

Of course losing sucks. This season sucked in many ways, but I still enjoyed watching all the games (well, most). I plan on living a few more decades. I'm in for the long haul. I happen to think we might not be too bad next year without signing a single FA. If we reset, we'll be better positioned for the next 2-3 years, at least. If we get two years in a row with draft picks between 10-20, instead of 27-30 or 40+ with the penalties, we can better position ourselves in years 3-8 from now. One down year should help us be better for many more years afterwards. I know you believe the answer is always just have Henry spend more and more, and that would be great in many ways. If that happens, then yes, we can stay godo to very good for a longer window, but I happen to believe Henry does not want to be thought of as the modern George Steinbrenner or to continuously outspend most teams by 100-200% and other top spending teams by $20-50M every year. More power to him and us, if he does, but I'd feel like a hypocrite for all the crap I heaped on Yankee fans for decades only to watch us become the target of that same crap. I'm not saying go frugal. Staying $1M under the luxury tax may still make us the 3rd or 4th highest paid team in 2020 is not poverty. Resetting the tax and then asking Henry to go over the line in 2021 and beyond makes much more sense when the taxes are way less due to the reset. My position is based on the belief that I don't think Henry will stay over the limit forever, and to me, it makes more sense to reset in 2020, so we can spend and keep Betts in 2021 and others afterwards.

I agree, and although there is some truth to body type & aging theories, there are plenty of players his size that had some great late careers. These numbers seem to indicate he's trending better not worse: LD%: 16.8% in 2017 21.2% in 2018 24.0% in 2019 Soft Hit% 18.2% in '17 12.2% in '18 11.6% in '19 I'm not sure why his UZR/150 dropped: 20.9 in '16 19.0 in '15 21.0 in '18 12.8 in '19 and if this continues, it may be very hard to reach a 9 or 10 WAR again, but I've know some players who improve on defense as they age. It wouldn't surprise me to see him back neat 20 over the next few years. He's averaged an 8.4 bWAR (7.6 FWAR) over the last 4 years.

Us included. We were top 6 in farm rankings before DD came. These days, it's not easy to build up the farm, unless you do one of these three things (4 if you count getting lucky): 1) Suck for a couple or more years to get top draft picks. 2) Trade stars for prospects, like the Dodger and Yanks have done, and we did with the ERod trade. 3) Have a great scouting and talent evaluation system in place and continuously find gems with lower picks. It appears that nobody here wants to try #1, and I'd like to avoid it, if possible. #2 means trading Betts and maybe more. #3 looks great on paper, but where are these guys and why don't we ever find them? We've done well in the past, when the rules favored us, and even the farm of 2015-2016 was boosted by rules and conditions that are no longer around. Are we going to pin all our hopes on luck? The idea is to try and get 5-15 prospects with a decent to good chance of being more than role players in the hopes that 3-6 come through. Right now, we might, and I stress the word might have 3-5 prospects in that category (most 2-3 years way), and we need 4-5 to come through in a big way. That's just not realistic. It pains me to say it, but I believe it's true.

He's also hit 30 HRs more than once and may get to 30 this year, too. The power was not that big of a fluke, and with the state of MLB, these days, he may hit 40 next year. Plus, bWAR has him as having 9.7 and 10.9 seasons, so he's already almost done it already. This year, he has had his second best OBP of his career and may end up with his second best SLG. It's a dip from 2018, but I wouldn't say it shows a trend of dropping off a cliff. His BAbip is way less than 2018, but he has a higher LD% and a lower soft hit% than 2018, so maybe with a little more luck...

Eventually, but not at ages 28-29. Many improve in those years. Many, even his body types have their best seasons between 28-30. He turns 27 very soon. You need more than guys with his body type breaking down at age 27. How about guys with his "twitch times?" (There are none.) The other thing you're missing is that he had his 10+ WAR season playing only 136 games. He could reach 10.0 by playing worse or having a less than .370 BAbip, but for 156 games, instead.

Why? Betts was younger, and still is, than some who had their first and second 9 or 10+ WAR years. I get your point about his body types not aging well, but he's still just at the start of his peak prime years. He can easily have another 9 or 10+ season. The list of those who have done it once is shorter than those who have done it twice or more: 2+ Ruth Gehrig Bonds (don't count him, if you wish) Williams Hornsby Mantle Foxx (I counted 9.9) Musial (I counted 9.9) Mays Ripken (had 2 plus a 9.8) Trout 1 only Yaz (also had a 9.3 in 1068- the year of the pitcher) Morgan (also had a 9.5) Boudreau Betts (still in prime) R Henderson (also had a 9.7) Norm Cash Posey ARod (also had a 9.6 & 9.2)

I have none, and all of this is conjecture, on both sides.

To win in the long term is the easy choice.