moonslav59

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.

No, but it looks bad when compared to the other 29 teams, and with bad draft slots and low IFA bonus pools, it won't be easy to build it back up without trading a vet or two for prospects.

Getting 2 pen arms will almost certainly put us over the first line. Resetting just one time saves tens of millions down the road.

I don't think we've done a "good job." We have a few far away promising prospects, but nobody in the top 100 and maybe only 2-3 in the top 150.

I corrected that for you.

So, we're actually trying to win, now?

I'd keep playing and then the decision to cut him won't be as hard. My guess is that's what's going on with Gorkys, too.

I don't disagree. It makes sense to change what doesn't appear to work. Plus, nobody needs extra rest due to pitching a lot in Sept and Oct. My guess is Price and Sale will still be babied with pitch counts all 2020, no matter what they do in ST'ing.

One thing will be different. Our starters will not be overworked from the previous season and 3 playoffs series, including one super long game. I'm not arguing that the extra rest may or may not have made a difference in April or the whole season. It's impossible to even come close to knowing one way or the other. For some the amount of innings pitched was just marginally less in 2019. Certainly IP'd in the playoffs do not substitute for IP's in March, but it's not unreasonable to think going a little easier on some starters in ST'ing after being overworked a few months earlier is not some wild and crazy idea. Plus, Eovaldi, Sale and Price had shown injury and durability issues in recent years, so thinking we might want to limit the risk of injury or burning them out early has some merit. They all sucked AND got hurt. That fact does not prove anything about the ST'ing plan. It appears to support the idea that it was a bad idea, but it can never be proven. I'd like to know what those three starters feel about the idea that the extra rest hurt them- not that it would prove anything no matter what they say. 2019 Playoff IP 26.0 Price (5 GS/1 RP) 22.1 Eovaldi (2 GS/4 RP) 15.1 C Sale (3 GS/2 RP) 15.1 Porcello (3GS/2RP) 10.0 ERod (1 GS/ 6RP) ST'ing IP '19-'18-'17 Pitcher 15-Inj- 22 ERod 12-16-14 Porcello 9-15-21 Sale 7-12-Inj Price Inj- Eovaldi Looks minor to me, but who knows?

Where are they now?

Yes, Pom helped us win the division once. He hurt us the other two years, and he never helped us win a ring, which is what I was focusing on, although I did not say it. CK was a huge part of all 3 division wins but not the ring. We may have won the division in 2018 without him and his contract, presumably spent on someone else and the 4 prospects back from the trade or someone else had we traded them for another player. Look, I admitted it was pure speculation.

1) I said "might." 2) I said Kimbrel OR Sale NOT Kimbrel AND Sale.

Most HRs by a Sox catcher since 1970: 26 Fisk '77 26 Fisk '73 25 VTek '03 22 Fisk '72 22 VTek '05 20 Fisk '78 20 VMart '10 21 Vaz '19 18 Gedman '85 18 VTek '04

Really? Seriously? We couldn't have won without Thornburg, Smith, Pom? Oh wait! We did win without them all. Hell, we might have won without Sale or Kimbrel. How about Kinsler? Just having Buttrey would have helped a lot, this year.

...and if we play everyone more next spring, and we suck in April, will that one month sample size be "proof positive" of anything at all? I'm thinking, "NO!" Just like this April was.

MLBTR should have a separate site just for injuries. They have nothing to do with trades and trade rumors.

I had major issues with the Kimbrel and POm trades, and it wasn't about not liking the 2 guys we got. It was about giving up too much for a top paid closer and a SP'er with a very short record of success for some very good prospects- 5 in total. That doesn't mean I wanted to keep even all those 5 prospects. I'd have preferred to trade Espi, Guerra and Margot for a low cost SP'er like Quintana than CK. We'd still have Allen and Asuage. Maybe we give MIL Asuage instead of Dubon. I realize this is totally speculative, but maybe we'd still have Allen and Dubon and a ring (or more). Maybe. Maybe not. It's okay to wonder and debate these what ifs.

Why are you being so Obtuse? Do you really not know there can be a happy medium? There's a huge gray area between trading them all,since their only usefulness is by trading them all (or nearly all) and hoarding them all. The Sox did keep some. Some of us think we should have kept a couple more of the prospects- not a radical position. Some are fine with trading all the ones we traded but think we could have gotten more (admittedly speculative). Some wonder, if we could have still won without 1 or 2 of the trades we made. Some could care less.

So, some are worth more by keeping them. That's three not two uses. How are you so sure the ones we traded won't be the next Betts, Bogey or Devers? That's kind of the point being made. Just because they are not them, now, does not mean that someday they will not. Also, making this point does not mean I'm never for trading prospects. I've suggested thousands of prospects trades in my lifetime.

Sounds like you think we should have traded Betts, Bogey & Devers back when they were prospects. BTW, nobody wanted to "hoard" all our prospects, so let's not argue against a position nobody advocated.

I wonder.... Had we given all our starters the normal ST'ing innings, which would have been maybe 5-15 more innings each, and 3 or 4 had major injuries, would the debate, today, had been about all the extra innings they got last October and why we didn't go easier on them in ST'ing and early in the 2019 season?

This should casuse managers to use the lefty-righty-lefty line-ups even more.

I seem to remember 1 or 2 agreeing with that position.