moonslav59

UZR/150 from 2017-2019 CF: 9.5 Billy Hamilton 9.2 Jarrod Dyson 7.6 Juan Lagares 6.9 Keon Broxton 6.1 Leonys Martin 4.1 JBJ -1.5 Starling Marte -16.5Austin Jackson (33, N/A)

I think we go "stopgap." I hope we go defensive stopgap. Here are the FA Center fielders: Starling Marte (31 years old, 3.0 WAR) -- $11.5 million club option for 2020 ($2 million buyout) Jarrod Dyson (35, 1.3) Billy Hamilton (29, 0.4) -- $7.5 million mutual option for 2020 ($1 million buyout) Carlos Gómez (34, -0.1) Mason Williams (28, -0.1) Leonys Martin (32, -0.6) Keon Broxton (30, -0.8) Juan Lagares (31, -0.8) Austin Jackson (33, N/A)

I knew I missed a few.

Paying JD more than he's already owed by the Sox is a huge gamble. He's getting older. He's had back issues. He's pretty much just a DH, now, and playing him in the OF risks injury. He will not likely make more than $23.75M a year on any new deal, but the $2.5M buyout makes it so he only needs to make $21.25M to break even for 2020 only. There is no buyout, if he opts out after 2020, and his salary dips to $19.375 those 2 last years. It may make sense to opt out after 2020, but a bad injury could be a risk he does not want to take. So, he's owed $63.25M/3, assuming he stays for all 3 years. Is it worth it to him to sign for $70-75M/4? That's basically adding $7-12M for one more year. Maybe, the Sox could be the one offering the most for a 4 or 5 year deal. I'm not sure anyone offers him $80M/4 or $90M/5. If we got him back for $72M/4, the AVV would be reduced from $22M to $18M. $76M/4 would be $19M, and so on... I'm not sure saving that much on the AVV and luxury tax budget is something the new Sox management is even considering.

Most arbs underpay players as compared to FA market salary, but every now and then, an example like JBJ's comes up. The 4th arb year is part of the inflated value. Most final arbs are at year 3.

A lot of his signings in his last 4 years were questionable, at best. Carl Crawford Bobby Jenks Adrian Beltre John Lackey Mike Cameron Marco Scutaro Johns Smoltz Takashi Saito Brad Penny Rocco Baldelli Matt Clemente Re-signed Mike Lowell (3 yrs) Re-signed Curt Schilling (1 yr) Plus, these trades (some were good): Reddick for Bailey Marwin Gonzalez for Marco Duarte Rizzo for AGon Dustin Richardson for Andrew Miller Scrubs for Salty Kotchman for Bill Hall Masterson for VMart Adam LaRoche for Casey Kotchman Coco Crisp for Ramon Ramirez Manny for Jason Bay

If we trade/non tender/opt out JBJ, Betts & JD, there's plenty of budget space for a guy like Holt.

Speaking of Theo, if you compare his first 4 years vs his last 4 years, you might be shocked by the disparities.

If JD opts out, we have no cost counting towards the 2020 luxury tax budget. If he does not opt out, and we trade him, we may pay part of his salary. That would count.

I'm fine with what all our last 3 GMs did, even 4 counting Dan D setting up Theo well. They all made mistakes, but what GM never has? I'm feeling better about our future with the moves we've made in management. Let's let this winter play out. I think we may be surprised how quickly the rebuild can happen. Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but I'm pretty certain we're better off now than had we kept DD around. (And, that's not meant to be a slam on DD. He's just not the guy we need for a rebuild.)

1) There is no $6M hit on the luxury tax, if he opts out. It's a $2.5M buy out, and that cost went against 2018 and 2019 not 2020. 2) We got JD to win a ring, and we won a ring. If it took an opt out to get him here, yipee not oh s***! 3) We've won 4 rings in the past 16 years, and we're heading for a rebuild. I'm fine with life as a Sox fan. We have the best owner we've ever had. We'll be on top again.

Yes, the guy who got us a ring AND built up a strong farm for another to follow. I guess those last place finishes override everything else.

Makes me now hope Betts gets traded.

JD is too old to be in anyone's long term plans. Sure, he may do very well for 4+ more years, but for a team looking to rebuild, it's not a gamble I think they'll make.

When Theo left the Sox, he spoke openly about the mistakes he made with the Sox, especially towards the end. It kind of seems like he did the same thing with the Cubs, but like the Sox, the beginning part was all about getting that first ring.

All that matters is the team understand the opt out nuances. If we trade him and pay part of his salary, that salary counts against our tax budget, but we'd still save a lot.

Here's something on Theo & the Cubs' budget: Breaking down Cubs' financial situation Oct. 30: Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein has made it a policy not to delve into specifics when it comes to his team's payroll plans in any given year, but chairman Tom Ricketts' comments on 670 AM The Score in Chicago on Wednesday morning at least gave some indication that he'd like to trim the payroll and get below the $208 million Competitive Balance Tax threshold in 2020. "It's not about how much you spend," Ricketts said on the Mully & Haugh Show, pointing out that the Cubs had an estimated $234 million payroll in 2019 but went 84-78. "It's about how much you win. The correlation between spending and winning isn't nearly as strong as we'd like it to be in a sense. Obviously, the top couple teams in the league [in payroll] didn't make the playoffs. We spent more than every team that made the playoffs -- probably a couple of them combined. Even if you really thought spending was the answer, the free-agent market is always fraught. "This year we'll pay several million dollars to the league, which is just kind of a dead-weight loss that goes to the other teams. And on top of that, if you do it for too long, the fees go up. And if you do it for too much, then you lose Draft picks. Ultimately, it's great to have the financial resources that we do. It's an advantage, and there's no doubt about it." The Cubs' roster, as currently constituted, could account for close to $200 million once options and projected arbitration costs are factored in, according to MLB.com's Jordan Bastian, which means the team is unlikely to be engaged on upper echelon free agents such as Gerrit Cole or Anthony Rendon. Epstein's best route to improve the team could be trading a core piece such as Kris Bryant, Javier Báez or Kyle Schwarber to address other needs. All three can become free agents after the 2021 season. Anthony Rizzo could enter free agency the same year if his $16.5 million club options are picked up in each of the next two seasons. And Willson Contreras is due to hit the open market the following year. While Ricketts expects the Cubs to remain a perennial contender, he conceded the team probably won't be able to re-sign all of its top players in the coming years. Bryant, Báez and Schwarber are also getting increasingly expensive now as they go through arbitration, which could be another motivation to move one of them.

I don't think that is how it works. The Sox will get a pick after the 4th round, but it's not a pick the signing team gives up. What the signing team loses is not related to what team lost the player. Any team that signs a player who has rejected a qualifying offer is subject to the loss of one or more Draft picks. However, a team's highest first-round pick is exempt from forfeiture, which is the most notable change that went into affect with the new system. Three tiers of Draft-pick forfeiture -- which are based on the financial status of the signing team -- are in place to serve as a penalty for signing a player who rejected a qualifying offer: • A team that exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season will lose its second- and fifth-highest selections in the following year's Draft, as well as $1 million from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If such a team signs multiple qualifying-offer free agents, it will forfeit its third- and sixth-highest remaining picks as well. Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second- and fifth-round picks. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-highest first-round pick and its fourth-round pick. • A team that receives revenue sharing will lose its third-highest selection in the following year's Draft. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its fourth-highest remaining pick. Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its third-round pick. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-round pick. • A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft, as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick and an additional $500,000. Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first-round pick.

Yes, and if the do not offer arbitration, they could still out bid anyone else for JBJ and get him for less than the arb might have given him. That was my point. (BTW, I doubt this happens. I think we either non tender and get outbid or we trade him.)

One difficult thing to prove is determining who are the best 2, 3 or 4 teams and who are the worst. With unbalanced schedules, in-season team roster changes and other factors influencing how good each team is when the reach day one of the playoffs, it's hard to prove anything. If you go by just W-L records, staring in 2004, here are the league W-L rankings 2004: BOS 2> STL 1 2005: CWS 1> HOU 3 2006: STL 4> DET 3 (2 wins from #1) 2007: BOS 1> COL 1 2008: PHI 2> TBR 2 2009: NYY 1> PHI 2 2010: SFG 2> TX 4 2011: STL 4> TX 2 Play-In Game Starts (10 teams make POs, so #1-#5 in each league): 2012: SFG 3> DET 5 2013: BOS 1> STL 1 2014: SFG 4> KC 4 2015: KC 1> NYM 5 (2 wins from #4) 2016: Cubs 1> CLE 2 2017: HOU 1> LAD 1 2018: BOS 1>LAD 3 2019: WAS 3> HOU1 WS Record of teams ranked 1 or 2: 11-5 WS Record of teams ranked 3-5: 5-11 WS Wins & League Ranks of Teams Winning the WS: 8 by #1 teams 3 by #2 teams 2 by #3 teams 3 by #4 teams 0 by #5 teams This is as plain as day no crap shoot! WS Losses & Team Rankings 5 by #1 teams 4 by #2 teams 3 by #3 teams 2 by #4 teams 2 by #5 teams This is also no crap shoot. 32 teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons- if it was totally random, one would expect each ranking to make the 25% of the time (8 times in 16 years/32 teams). I'm counting the 4 and 5 ranked teams as one, since just one makes the final 8 teams. Total WS winners and Loser & League Rankings 13 by the #1 teams 7 by the #2 teams 5 by the # 3 teams 7 by the #4 & 5 teams combined It looks somewhat random between the 2 through 4/5 rankings, but the number one ranked team in each league has won way more often than randomly suggested. 13 instead of 8 is hardly a crap shoot. A number 1 teams makes the WS 81% of the time, instead of 25%. A number 1 team wins the WS 50% of the time, instead of 25%. I don't think I have the wrong notion of what the word "crapshoot" means, but no matter what you think it means, it can't mean this. Maybe, before 2004, it was more of a crap shoot, but more and more MLB has become a league of 3-5 super teams, and the rest lag way behind in talent level. 8 teams make the playoffs (10 if you count the both WC teams in each league). Those non super teams do not have anywhere near equal odds of winning the WS or making it there. It's not even close. Not even in our new world of "alternative facts" and realities.

To me, a crap shoot is like flipping a coin. Surely, better teams win more often than worse ones, even in 5 or 7 game series. Yes, baseball is more random than other sports, but it is not a 50-50 crap shoot. If it was, the worse half teams making the playoffs would win it all more often than 30% of the time.

You don't think the difference between 55.7% and 53.2% is a crapshoot? 1) I'm looking at more than just the #1 vs # 8 or #10 team. 2) I do not think those numbers are accurate over the last 15 years. 3) 55.7% is not a crap shoot- 50% is. As far as a study since 2003, I don't think there would be that much difference. Several studies have been done since 1995 when the wildcards began. I can't see 8 years making any difference. The difference between 1995 and 2003 or 2004 is massive. Look at how the richer teams just exploded their spending while the lower and middle teams barely increased their spending. The better teams are much better than the fringe teams over the last 15 years. BTW, I did a study of the winners since 2003, and the numbers do not support your claims. It's on one of the more recent pages.

I'm just glad we said good bye to Kimbrel.

We can use a lot of things, but yes, 2B is not near the top of the list. I'm not really worried about back-up catcher, in terms of cost in money or trade. SP & RP are clearly at the top along with an OF'er to replace JBJ. 2B, 1B and even more pitching could be useful.

Basically just about every defensive CF'er we said would be available this winter.