moonslav59

Just offer Mookie a fair and generous contract and let the chips fall where they may.

SD spent big and still finished last. Maybe they go for broke. SF loses Bumgarner and then Samardzija after 2020. Posey, Cueto, Belt & Crawford after 2021. It's not looking so hellish anymore, but they may have learned a lesson. I agree, LAA looks most likely, but there will be competition.

I think we'll go over the luxury tax line after we reset, so it's not really a hard cap. I understand the 1 man making 1/7th of your budget argument. I agree, it doesn't look right, but Betts is worth 7 average players and then some, IMO. I won't be heart broken, if Betts bolts, and there are limits to high high I'd go, but I'd make him a fair offer. I'm confident Bloom will spend that $30M wisely, if not on Betts, so either way is okay with me.

Good points. I did not mention these two because both are not Rule 5 until after 2020, but they could certainly be added to the 40 man roster, if we feel they can help on the 25 man roster at some point, next year. I doubt either is added by opening day, although they may get a ST'ing invite.

Dodgers, Padres- maybe even Seattle or SF.

...and the defense isn't even close, despite some improvement on D from Devers and steady D by Bogey.

Dave Bush, the new Sox pitching coach? https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/10/report-dave-bush-favorite-to-become-red-sox-pitching-coach.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Good. 28 is enough and may help eliminate games with 15+ pitching changes. We had a 16 inning games where 25 pitchers were used! Let that sink in. Also starting next year, pitchers must pitch to either a minimum of three batters or the end of a half-inning, barring situations involving injury or illness.

Are you making a point?

I can see that position as being reasonable, but obviously I disagree. Here's why: 1) Betts does not ever have to repeat 2018 to be worth $300M/10. 2) 2018 was his best season, but he's had a season pretty close and 3 other seasons of high productivity: BWAR (Year) fWAR 10.9 (2018) 10.4 9.7 (2016) 8.3 6.8 (2019) 6.6 6.4 (2017) 5.3 5.9 (2015) 4.8 3) He just turned 27. He likely has 5-6 prime years left and 2-3 near prime years. If Betts puts up these WAR numbers in the next 10 years, would you say he's worth $300M/10? 7 '19 (age 27) 8 '20 (28) 7 '21 (29) 7 '22 (30) 6 '23 (31) 5 '24 (32) 4 '25 (33) 4 '26 (34) 3 '27 (35) 3 '28 (36) Amount of players in MLB over the last 10 years with the above WAR totals at the ages listed: Ages: 35-36: 33 @ 3.0+ (36 at 2.9 or better) 3-4 per year 33-34: 32 @ 4.0+ (34 at 3.8 or better) 3-4 per year (Look at some of the names on this list and tell me Betts isn't as good or better) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=33,34&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=&page=1_50 31-32: 33 @ 6.0+ and 44 @ 5+ WAR https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=31,32&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=&page=1_50

Another look at the 2020 Red Sox 40 Man Roster: 1) Assume Pedey goes on the 60 Day DL, so he does not take up an official slot. 2) Assume none of our free agents return. 3) Assume JBJ and JD are gone, somehow- some where. 4) Here's how I see the rest... 16 Keepers: Devers, Betts, Bogaerts, Sale, ERod, Benintendi, Vazquez, Workman, D Hernandez, Barnes, Walden, Chavez, Taylor, Price, Eovaldi, Lin 14 Borderline: Johnson, Marco Hernandez, Weber, Velazquez, Brasier, Chacin, Shawaryn, Brewer, Lakins, Travis, Poyner, Reyes, Kelley, Centeno 2 Likely Traded or Non Tendered: Hembree, Leon (may be re-signed after non tender) 8 Open Slots: 9 Rule 5 Possibilities: 2 Keepers: Dalbec, Chatham 2 Borderline: Kyle Hart, Marcus Wilson 5 Long Shots: Josh Ockimey, Pedro Castellanos, Cole Sturgeon, Eduard Bazaedo, Jhonathan Diaz Chances are, we have several slots open for free agency, but I do not see a roster crunch in any form this winter. I only see 18-20 guys that are keepers. My guess is we'll see a lot of wheeling and dealing- many small/minor deals.

A few teams not looking to reset next season.

Sox not going to offer JD another contract. https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/10/jd-martinezs-opt-out-boston-red-sox-havent-made-new-contract-offer-have-5-day-exclusive-window-at-start-of-mlb-free-agency.html?fbclid=IwAR0Xjb8WmiGPp90t_frrxKUA2VWQjZYZ9co1blMqx9oswNTdZdhHME49AM0

They are not trying to get to $180M. If they lose JBJ and JD, we'll have money to spend, and Bloom seems to like low to mid ranged FA signings, and maybe he likes Holt. I have no idea, if he does or not, but he could be back.

Yes, but they knew his arb costs were going up. It's not like he was cheap in 2019. I'm pretty sure people wanted him last winter- just not as much as DD hoped.

Holt might fit into Bloom's strategy.

I disagree. Every year, excpet maybe last year, teams wanted JBJ. I think teams wanted him, but DD was asking for too much in return.

Ig JBJ has a surplus value, then he must be worth more than his arb will award him. I'm not saying I agree his open market value is that high, but I still think we'll trade him not non tender. (Close call.)

Well, I'm going on the assumption that JBJ is worth close to $10M on the open market, since there were rumors someone wants to trade for him. Yes, if Pillar would get $7M or less on the open market, he's a better choice than JBJ at $10-11M. If they both cost the same, I'd choose JBJ. I still think JBJ has the potential to hit over .800 again. He did it twice. Pillar has never come close.

This makes me like him even more, Kimmi.

I'd probably say it's more like 5-25% after the WC play-in game is played. I'm think more of the head-to-head series. I know it's hard to choose the "favorite" based on winning % or WAR or who is hotter. Teams get better as the season goes on- soemtimes through trades or players getting healthy or just gelling at the right time (like the Rockies). It's hard to say, "The better team won," if we can't all agree on who the better team was/is. I get that this makes it hard to prove anything, but in my opinion, the better team wins closer to 75% of the time than 50%. Would you agree with that? (basically 62.5% or more) Now, if a team is just marginally better, the chances are likely less than 62.5%. I just happened to choose Winning % and showed that if the Astros win this year, a top 2 team from each league will have won the WS 75% of the time in the last 16 years. If these were all a one game playoff structure all the way through, we'd see closer to a 50% number, but a 5 and 7 game series helps the better teams win more often. Even if, like you propose, one team had a 10% chance and they play a team with a 15% chance, it's hardly a coin toss. It sounds like we both have a different isea of what a crap shoot means.

If he has a great 6 years then declines quickly, he may still be a draw at the gate and TV.

I'm for just about anything it takes to keep him here, unless some clown GM offers him the world. Let's see what Cole gets, this winter.

I'm not arguing there are no upsets and the odds are 100% the best teams win. Maybe we have different ideas of what crap shoot means, but to me a complete crap shoot means every series is a 50-50 guess. It's not a 100%. It's not 50%. It seems clearly somewhere in between. To me, it's closer to 75% than 50%. Are there upsets 50% of the series? Would you call 40-45% upsets a crapshoot? (Just trying to see, if we are arguing semantics and not theory.) How about 35%? 33%? 25%?

I can understand your position, and the history of long contracts is pretty bad, especially how they end. I just think Mookie is special. I'd rather get him for less years, and I think he's probably worth $45M x 4 years, then $25M x 2 and maybe $10M x 4, so $300M/10 looks about right to me.