moonslav59

I don't want to trade Vaz or Leon, and I'm fine with letting Leon catch every start by Sale & Price, but I don't see him doing well when playing more than 50-60 games- maybe 70. I don't want Swihart catching a lot. That's why I'm for trading Swihart with another player/prospect, even if it means the RP'er we get back isn't all that great.

Clearly Vaz. He has the better offensive upside. I'm not arguing that point. My point is, I'd rather get less of a pen arm by trading Swihart & Johnson than more of a pen arm for Vaz.

I'm sure money is being made, if you look at the prices of the stuff they sell. My point is that the vendor contract doesn't have to be with the team, it could be a separate contract with the owner of the team or facility (with maybe some money being kicked to the team owner as a non team entity). Maybe I'm wrong, but most businesses find ways to hide profits.

But that's because the Yanks graduated a bunch of top prospects (Torres, Andujar, Frazier) and traded a bunch of other top prospects (Sheffield, Estrada, Tate) for big league pieces. Sounds like us 2-3 years ago.

I just can't see us going through the whole season with Leon-Swihart. I'd rather go light on the pen.

What about Swihart & Johnson for Petit?

The Youth part has a lot of work to do with a stifling system in place that makes it very difficult to do so, when you are winning and spending over the $40M line.

The only dumb, extra salary on the books this year is Pablo, and it's his last year. (I guess you could count Castillo.) Don't get me wrong, I love winning and I don't mind us spending big or even spending more than anyone else, but to vastly outspend all other teams for more than 2-3 years, it becomes an issue for me.

We haven't blown away all others on budgets until last year and maybe this year.

IMO, only Vazquez, but he's the one we need the most. Leon can't catch 60-70% and I don't want Swihart catching anymore than 5% of the games, let alone 30%+. To me, the mid ranged contract players we can afford to trade the most (Moreland and Nunez) are NOT surprisingly the ones nobody wants or won't bring us back the quality pen arm we need. Throwing in Swihart or a mid ranged prospect might help a little, but we won't get anything very useful for them. Trading Holt or Porcello could get us a nice return, but I'm not sure we can afford to lose them- certainly not Porcello and maybe not Holt, depending on the luck of Pedey not tweaking his knee again. I mean, Pedey only lasted how long last year? Do we really want to rely on Nunez's knee and Lin at 2B and back up 3B this year? I guess it comes down to how bad you think our current closer is vs that choice at 2B. We aren't trading Porcello. I doubt we trade Moreland or Nunez for the reasons I just gave. Swihart will not bring a closer, unless we add Chavis and Shawaryn or something similar. Tough call, but if the budget is the $40M line, then trading is the only option vs status quo.

Holt, unless maybe I knew Nunez's knee was 100%. (I agreed that Holt will bring back more. The added money on Nunez's contract makes it even worse.

Who's left? Or, what's your top 10 now? Any other trade ideas like the one you made earlier?

Exactly! And, after spending way more than anyone else last year and already spending more than anyone else this year, I'm not going to criticize Henry (of DD) for not spending more and more, getting taxed more and more and getting lower picks due to penalties year after year. Personally, I don't want us to become the next Steinbrenner Yankees. My guess is many a non Sox fan already view us the way we used to view the Yanks...with scorn, hatred and frustration.

I think the M's made the right decision and are on a path to getting better.

Yes, but Yankee fans should not still be bragging about having a top 10 farm, right?

MLBTR reports... Speaking of injured hurlers from the division, Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe tweets that Red Sox righty Tyler Thornburg began his offseason throwing program earlier than usual this winter, adding that Thornburg’s shoulder has “tested out well” in the early-going.

No doubt, you guys have better pitching prospects than we do. Let's see how it shakes out. If your ML-ready guys repeat their 2018 numbers, maybe a re-evaluation will be needed.

What if Paxton wilts under the spotlight- the excuse now being used for Gray's poor performance with the Yanks? Crow eating?

Is used 3 year not to punish Judge, but to not penalize Betts for his off 2017 season. Plus, I switched to UZR/150 and wRC+,so there was no cumulative-based assessment used. lso, Betts missed some time last year, too. Many felt he played hurt in 2017, and that's why his numbers were down. Betts only played in 24 more games than Judge last year.

OK, maybe "shell company" was not the correct term, but money made off of these sales can be easily hidden as non team profits.

Nifty choice of a two year sample size. On DRS, yes Judge is 3rd, but the differential is huge-- 51 runs saved to 23. UZR is 36.7 to 14.5. 3 years: UZR/150 20.2 Betts 9.7 Judge WAR 24.0 Betts 13.0 Judge wRC+ 155 Judge 140 Betts' 2 Year WAR 15.7 Betts 11.5 Judge

I think this might be the first winter I haven't suggested trading Holt. It makes more sense to trade Nunez. His salary is a little higher and his health is now a bigger concern than Holt's. For those reasons, he'd also bring back less than Holt. I think Holt is a better defender than Nunez at 2B, which is likely where our utility IF'er will be needed most. If Pedey never comes back we may need Holt FT at 2B. Last year we used Nunez 10 times more at 3B than Holt, but only about 3:2 at 2B. I'm not sure DD would like the idea of relying on Nunez FT at 2B, but I suppose we could us Lin or trade for another Kinsler type, if needed. Out of the 3 players with salaries between $3-6M (Nunez, Holt & Moreland), Holt is the one other teams want or need most. I'd hate to trade Holt, but our pen seems more in need than our utility IF situation. I thinks this type of deal could happen.

Population is not everything. Demographics play a big role. Places like Houston and Florida have a high population of people who have moved there as strong fans of other teams. They will never become an Astros fan. Maybe their kids might. Other areas are more into football. Other areas are too poor to be able to afford tickets.

LOL. I'm not suggesting or advocating Socialism in MLB. The better and best players deserve more money, and some deserve way more. They bring the fans in and to their TVs. They deserve it. The players union, however, has much more lower to mid-range paid players, and if the stood up as a group and demanded better pay for lower tier players, then the results might look different from past agreements. Everyone assumes most players just want to see the luxury tax limit go up and up. Since only a few teams go near or over the limit and a relatively few amount of players sign big deals with those clubs, maybe they will look to other ways to improve their pay, their "share of the pie" but in a way that gives all players more earlier in their careers. This would help all players, especially those who only play a short time and then are gone, but also other.

I'm not saying they aren't going to ask for a bigger piece of the pie.Of course they will try. I'm thinking more about how they might (should) suggest it be distributed. Of course, actual free agency would bring more money to the players than the current arb salaries, but arb players do make decent money compared to pre-arbs. If they created earlier arbs they'd see a big raise, too. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying; I'm just offering ideas on other possible outcomes of the next CBA, and I'm thinking it may not help the bigger teams as much as some seem to think it might.