moonslav59

Winter deal. I'm sure we'd ask for Urshela or Andujar, but I doubt the Yanks would give multiple years of control for 1 of Betts. They probably wouldn't even give Frazier or Florial, but one would probably be demanded.

Yes, "can be" for several. Probably 1 or 2 will be due mainly to them being so bad (historically in their careers) this year. But, none that I can truly say I feel confident they will be better.

I never said Mookie would not get a big payday- just that he won't get what he's asking for. We should make him a fair offer, and probably trade him, if he says no. Then offer him a similar offer, when he's a FA.

Agreed.

One less loss for the Sox. Thanks, God.

All we have to do is offer Betts more or the same as the highest bidder. There is no guarantee he "gets what he's asking for." Several big named FAs have not gotten close to what the wanted in recent years. Some didn't even get signed until mid season. Betts will get a big payday. I'm pretty sure we give him a highly competitive offer. I share your concern about not trading him and possibly losing him to free agency with nothing to show for it, but it's not like if we lose out on a $30M per year bid for Betts, we'll walk away from the FA market with nothing. I'm okay with looking to trade him AND then try to re-sign him later, but I'm not sure that is a highly probable event.

The fact is Brasier was given more high leverage opportunities earlier in the season. He basically lost the closer job to Barnes and Workman. That automatically limited the amount of times Barnes has been used as the closer. I'm not denying that he has been counted on to close more than last year, but it's not by a whole lot. Last year, he pitched in many back-to-back games in high leverage situations. He was just about lights out, last year. Maybe the pressure was just too much this year, or maybe he was just due for a bad year. Maybe it was a little of both. Maybe he'd have sucked had we signed Ottavino instead of Eovaldi. Last year's back-to-back and back-to-back-to backs: 3/30-4/1 0 ER in 0.2 (2nd game) 5/9, 5/10, 5/11 1 IP 0 ER (2nd) 1 IP 0 ER (3rd) 6/9, 6/10 1 IP 2 ER 7/26, 7/27 0.2 IP 0 ER 8/10, 8/11, 8/12 1.0 0 ER 1.0 1 ER This year, he's done this: 4/19, 4/20, 4/21 (1-1 and 1-1) 5/14, 5/15 (0.2-0) 6/1, 6/2 (1-3) 6/12, 6/13 (1-0) 6/21,6/22 (0.2-3) 6/25, 6/26 (0.1 2) 7/4-5-6 (1.0-0, 0.1 0) 7/14, 7/15 (0.1 0) 7/22-23 (1.0-0) He's also had this.... 0.2-1 ER after 2 days rest 1.0- 1 after 3 0.0- 1 after 2 1.0- 1 after 4 0.2- 2 after 2 0.1- 3 after 4 0.2- 2 after 4 1.0- 2 after 2

Thank you for clarifying. The Cubs are an example of how even a GM known for being able to find fine young talent just cannot do it under the current system. At least it is very hard. The winning teams that have a strong farm, either traded some top talent for prospects over recent years or sucked for a while not too long ago.

Exactly. DD left about $3-4M to spend on the pen, then decided not to even spend that during the season. Every team has weaker areas. We chose to build up every area, except the pen. The plan failed, but not just because the pen failed us. Our rotation has been a larger factor in our losses than the pen. The pen has done more to win games than the starters. Go back and look- game by game. Forget expectations, salaries or any arguments about overwork- our rotation has sucked more than the pen has sucked.

Brasier was actually given more closing opportunities than Barnes at the start of the season. Barnes and Brasier both have 10 save opportunities. (Barnes had 3 last year.) Barnes is on pace for way less innings than last year, and I didn't even count the playoff innings. Barnes pitched many high leverage innings last year. 2018: 8.2 IP in playoffs 99 PAs against in high leverage/162 Late & Close (Reg season only) If you add the playoffs, it's probably more like 135 high leverage and 180 Late & Close 2019: 102 high leverage (on pace for about 140) 149 Late & Close (on pace for about 190) I'm not buying it. Barnes has just sucked.

Many of the pitchers on my list provided lost velocity or had to re-invent themselves after a 1-3 year dip. Some regained their velocity or "stuff" after the dip. Tell me why Sale is so different than the the guys on my list. Look at CC. Look at Price. Both clearly lost velocity and came back to be better than a middle rotation pitcher. Peavy> Lester and Lackey, too. Some of the other guys, I'm not sure how they improved after the dip, but my guess is some of them did not have the same "stuff" as before the dip. They learned new ways to get guys out. The great pitchers do that. Basically 15 out of 18 did just that and two (Sale & Kershaw) have yet to be judged. I like those odds. Even if you don't like them, your implying Sale is almost certainly doomed to mediocrity, at best, is puzzling.

Here's a look at the top 18 SP'ers by WAR since 2003. Notice how almost every one had a down season or two, usually around age 30-32, but then bounced back to greatness or near greatness afterwards. We like to think pitchers over 30 all decline, but many of the greats, and Sale is a great one, actually do batter after that one to two "off years" around 29-32 years old. Have a look... ERA+ 1) Verlander 136 ages 26-30 85 age 31 142 ages 32-36 Better than before 2) Kershaw 179 ages 23-29 145 ages 30-31 ??? ages 32>>> 3) Sabathia 140 ages 25-31 83 ages 32-34 115 ages 35-37 Not as good as before but very good 4) Greinke 132 ages 23-31 102 age 32 140 ages 33-35 Better than before 5) Scherzer 144 age 28 123 age 29 160 age 30-34 Better than before 6) Felix H 141 ages 23-28 92 ages 29-33 (Kept getting worse and worse) 7) Halladay 146 ages 24-29 121 age 30 160 ages 31-34 Better than before 8) C Hamels 134 ages 26-28 104 age 29 128 ages 30-35 (130 ages 30-32) Close to the same as before 9) Cliff Lee 167 age 29 132 ages 30-31 138 ages 32-24 Not as good as before but still excellent 10) Lester 135 ages 24-27 97 ages 28-29 144 ages 30-32 Better than before 11) C Sale 144 ages 21-29 103 age 30 ??? ages 31>>> 12) Buehrle 131 ages 25-26 95 age 27 117 ages 28-33 99 age 34 110 ages 35-36 (2 examples of bouncing back) 13) Peavy 131 ages 23-28 90 ages 29-30 109 ages 31-34 (110 ages 31-33) Not as good as before but very good 14) Oswalt 143 ages 23-29 110 ages 30-31 126 ages 32-33 (145 age 32) Very good afterwards 15) J Santana 161 ages 23-27 129 age 28 143 ages 29-31 Not as good but still excellent 16) D Price 130 ages 24-29 112 age 30 127 ages 31-32 (111 at age 33) Still very good 17) J Lackey 127 ages 26-30 82 ages 31-33 (including missed season) 120 ages 34-37 Very close to as good as before and still excellent 18) D Haren 122 ages 24-30 85 ages 31-33 106 age 34 Only one good year after dip. Looking at these histories, I see no reason to think Sale is toast. Many great pitchers dipped and got even better afterwards. Many dipped and got back to a very good level. A couple dipped and got back to decency- maybe for just a short time. A couple the jury is still out. Only King Felix declined and kept declining.

You keep saying that about Sale. My study of the best 15 pitchers since 2003 showed that all but King Felix had a down year- most around age 30-32, but bounced back to be a very good, and at times, great pitcher again. Certainly, it is not impossible for him to do better than a middle rotation starter going forward. Do you think Sale can improve on 2019? What slot would a starter with these numbers be ranked? .292 weighted OBA 3.06 xFIP 3.10 SIERA 13.1 K/9 2.4 BB/9 Middle to bottom rotation?

MLBTR... 7:40pm: The Boston Globe’s Alex Speier reports several details on the procedure performed on Pedroia. The 35-year-old underwent a “relatively new” surgery called a “subchondroplasty” aimed at repairing multiple hairline fractures that had formed and strengthening the bones in his knee. He also had several bone spurs removed. Speier also quotes an orthopedic surgeon (Twitter link) in calling today’s surgery a “much bigger” procedure than the previous surgeries performed on Pedroia’s knee. The Globe’s Peter Abraham tweets that this particular surgery is sometimes performed as an alternative to a knee replacement.

Again, my point was not about Theo doing a bad job with the Cubs. It was about how difficult it is for any GM to build up the farm while winning every year and spending heavily every year. It's not easy for any GM to find multiple top prospects while drafting later than 25 every year and having limited international bonus pools. Do the Cubs have a top 15 farm system? People were praising Theo for building the Sox farm system up while winning, so I pointed out how the system was different then. Theo got a ton of comp picks while with the Sox. He also drafted some good prospects who had signability issues with teams who drafted ahead of him. He had an unlimited international FA budget. Times have changed for Theo, too.

I don't think the pen being overworked argument is a strong one. Here's why: 1) Most teams have starters going fewer and fewer innings over recent years, so our situation is not much different than other teams'. 2) Many teams have a 7 man pen: we have had an 8 man pen all year. I can't remember when that last happened with us. 3) Most of our RP'ers are not on pace for more IP than last year or two. Barnes pitched 66.2, 69.2 & 61.2 IP the last 3 years. He's on pace for about 55 IP, this year. Workman has been hurt the last few years and had 41.1 IP, last year. He's already had more IP and is on pace for about 67 IP- not an abnormal amount of innings for a RP'er. Walden was mostly a SP'er in 2017 and had 105.2 IP plus 21.2 in the fall league. He's on pace for about 76 IP this year. Brasier pitched 78 innings in AAA & MLB, last year. He's on pace for about 50 IP, this year. Hembree, Johnson and Velazquez are all on pace for less IP- some due to injuries, some due to just plain sucking. Only Workman has met or exceeded expectation in the pen. The pen has sucked more than they were supposed to suck, no doubt. It's not from overwork. We have 13 pitchers with more than 11 IP from the pen. Another 8 pitchers have combined for over 36 innings.

I used two methods to judge each game one-by-one: The first was: who pitched better in each game. The RP'ers blew away the starters. The second was giving a +2, +1, 0, -1 or -2 value for each game to the starters and the pen. The pen blew away the starters here, too. Yes, I get that the starters usually pitch more innings, but I went by ERA per start or pen totals. What about games where the starter lets up 5 runs in 3 IP and the pen shuts em down for 6 IP and we lose 6-5? How is that any different from a blown save? That game was lost by the starter. Call it a "blown start." Yes, the Yanks have many "blown starts", too, but just because they have way less blown saves than us does not mean blown saves is the major reason we are where we are right now. Both the pen and the starters have sucked. The starters have sucked more, and it's not even close. As for posters admitting they were wrong. I was terribly wrong about this year. I knew our pen was our weakest area, and I thought the rest of the team could carry us until we made a mid season trade for a RP'er. That didn't happen. The offense carried their weight . The defense slipped a little despite Devers' growth at 3B. The pen did worse than I expected, despite me not expecting much. I was wrong about the pen. I was much more wrong about the rotation. DEAD Wrong!

Forget "overuse". Forget "expectations." The starters have lost more games for us that the pen. The pen has won more games for us that the starters. It's not even close.

The difference you want to hear is blown saves. That's all that matters to you. The difference in blown saves is about how far behind we are. It's so simple- for you. Our starters have lost way more games than our pen. You can ignore that fact, but it is a fact.

I'm talking about building the farm under the new rules. How is the Cubs farm system? How has Theo drafted with low picks? How has he done on international signings? It's a good comp, because the Cubs have won a lot and spend a lot.

True, but how has Theo done under the same, new system with better draft picks and no budget penalties since joining the Cubs?

Forget expectations. The starters are more responsible for our losses than the pen. The pen has been more responsible for wins than the starters. It's not even close. I did a game by game study using two different criteria. It's not even close.

It's hard to fault DD's picks since many are still too young, and by winning so much, he had low picks every year. The spending penalties are on him.

The system was different then. 1) Many of Theo's best picks were comp picks. We don't get those anymore. 2) Many top young players fell to the lower picks due to signability issues. Slot money stopped that. 3) International signings are much harder now with set pool money that penalizes winners and big spenders.

It will be hard for any baseball genius to rebuild our farm with the limitations winning and over spending force on the system.