moonslav59

I totally agree, but we did not trade for Uehara to be our closer. We thought we had an established closer in Hanrahan and also Andrew Bailey. My point about trading for someone who might not be an established closer, but who might fit the bill is not something easy to do, and we could guess wrong, but it might be our best chance- assuming we can't go way over the $40M line or tie up big money in a contract over 1 to 2 years.

Depends what our future (and current) budget plans are. We obviously are not resetting this winter, so any one year deals are fine, unless the $40M line is set. I'm think we try to stay near the $40M line, like this year, and if tghat's the case, we won't spend big on a closer, and trading for one or doing without one seem like the most likely choices.

Lucroy signs for a little more than Leon will get ($3.35M/1).

Probably not someone a lot of people here want or think is good enough or proven enough. I have no names off the top of my head. We may get someone with little closer experience, but with a high K rate and lots of upside. We may get someone who is experienced but not with a great record. Then, we keep some flex money to trade for a closer mid season, if the one(s) we try don't work out.

I certainly want Bogey back, but he's not in my top 3 to keep (2019-2020 FAs to be).

I would bet we get a closer via trade.

I'm positive DD is not done, but it might not be through a "signing." It remains to be seen if the $40M line is a hard cap for DD or not for 2019, but my guess is, he's been directed to try and stay under or not go over by much. If my numbers are right, and we'll have about $5M to spend and still be under the line, I don't see a big signing in the works, unless we dump some salary. I also think, DD will want some flex money to spend mid season. It's what he's done very well at for several years, now. I could see us trading for a solid RP'er without adding any to the budget. That would leave us $5M for summer deals. If we are able to trade Nunez or Moreland, maybe we could sign a RP'er for $6-8M, have a little left for the summer and also trade for a decent RP'er.

I know this thread is intended for 2019 only, but the future budget choices, especially if a reset is in the plans after 2019 or 2020, affect the choices we make now. Here's one view of the situation, if we choose to reset after 2019: Start by subtracting Porcello, JD (opts out), Bogaerts, Sale, Moreland, Pearce, Nunez, Holt & Thornburg (some may be added back, if we stay under). That leaves this as the 2020 base to work from: Luxury Dollars in millions 31 Price ~26 Betts (last of 3 arbs) 17 Eovaldi 13.8 Pedroia ~13 JBJ (last of 4 arbs) ~9 ERod (3 of 4 arbs) ~6 Barnes (2 of 3) ~5 Wright (3 of 3) 4.5 Vazquez ~4.2 Beni (1st of 3) ~3.5 Leon (4 of 4) ~3.5 Hembree (2 of 3) ~2 Workman 3 of 3) ~1.5 Swihart (2 of 4) $141M for 14 players $15M benefits $8M 11 players at min MLB wage $3M 15 players on 40 man roster in minors $167M TOTAL $208M Tax threshold for 2020 That leaves $40M to spend and stay under to reset. We could bring some of our players back but certainly not close to everyone. We could sign a bunch of low to mid range free agents and look to try and contend to a small extent, or look to go large right away in 2021 by keeping Betts, JBJ and others. Here is a rough estimate on what our departing players might get in 2020 (per year) $30M Sale $24M JD $24M Bogey $18M Porcello $4M Nunez, Moreland, Pearce, Holt We may be able to keep JD or Bogey and Porcello or a pitcher at $14-16M or so, but there would be nothing left over for the rest of the roster. We'd have 8-9 guys at min wage on the 25 man roster. It's hard to contend when you have 9 replacement level players.

I should have asked Santa for this!

I thought maybe winning a ring might hasten the reset year, but it's hard to choose to rapidly dismantle such a great team. One big plus about resetting after 2019 is that we could probably pay Betts after 2020 and not be in the max tax rate territory.

I have thought we'd look to reset after 2020, but more and more, I'm thinking it might be after 2019.

The big difference to me, and I liked both signings, was this... 37 Pedroia's age on last year of deal 30 Porcello's age on his last year. Porcello's deal was ideal. Only 4 years and the ages were all in prime (27, 28, 29 & 30).

WAR What is it good for. Absolutely everything!

We could add a prospect or Swihart. We might see a lot of Kin, if we trade Holt. I'm not sure...

I get your points and don't disagree. I'm not saying we'll get anything for Moreland, but I do have to chuckle when I hear nobody wants Moreland, yet I'm a schmuck for suggesting we might try to trade him to free up budget space to get a better closer. I think it was pretty clear the Sox like Nunez more than Holt. As great as Holt did, Nunez, hobble and all, got more PAs. I agree, Holt would bring more return, but my idea was not about getting a RP'er by trading Moreland or Nunez, it was about freeing up budget space without having to trade Porcello, JBJ or someone more valuable than the two I mentioned. I do think the idea of trading Holt plus maybe Chavis might get us a cheap RP'er, but that is another method of getting what we need. There are a few options out there besides just plain signing a big FA and going way over the $40M mark. Yours is one way.

I have Holt penciled in at 2B starter next year, but Nunez is a close call there. They seemed to like Nunez at 3B more than Holt, so he looks to be the one we more likely keep when added to your point about Holt bringing the best return. My idea of trading Nunez (or Moreland) was geared towards creating budget space. Trading Holt does not help there much.

MLBTR... The White Sox, Red Sox and Rockies are all maintaining some level of interest in free-agent reliever Adam Ottavino, tweets Jon Morosi of MLB.com. As one of the top relievers on the market, the 33-year-old Ottavino should have no shortage of clubs inquiring about his services, though the asking price on top-end bullpen arms could prove prohibitive for some clubs.

He hits a wall (injury) every year. He's kinda grown on me, but I look at it this way: If Henry is okay with going over the $40M line every year, then we don't need to clear salary space for a solid closer. A while ago we were talking about Eovaldi vs Kimbrel, but I know who I'm picking, if it's between Moreland + Nunez or a solid closer. I know our bench would be severely weakened, but who else can we trade making more than $4M? Anybody needed less than Moreland or Nunez (other than untradeable Pedey)?

I'd rather have a very solid closer or a couple nice pen options than Nunez and/or Moreland. I'd like to keep a cushion for the season, as well. Trading Nunez and Moreland would really put a lot of pressure and hopes on guys like (Pedey) Holt & Pearce, but also on our very thin bench of Lin, Chavez, Swihart and maybe Ockimey or Dalbec. That doesn't sound too appealing, but if not going over the $40M line is a priority, then I can't see how we spend much on a closer, unless we dump some salary or trade top prospects for a low cost reliever.

As much as I hate the fact that we have severe budget challenges, I do think choice like Eovaldi vs Kimbrel are a reality. I'm not saying Henry is shutting the door on any more big spending this winter, but it very well may be the case. In our current case, "finding the money" is very hard. Trading Porcello would negate the Eovaldi signing. The only salaries I can see that are tradeable without us opening another huge hole are Nunez and Moreland. An argument can be made that both are very important, but probably not more than getting a solid closer. I'm not sure if anyone wanys Nunez or Moreland at their costs. Again, as a hypothetical, who do take as an either/or: Eovaldi or Kimbrel To me, it's not close. It's Eovaldi.

Yes. All teams take risks. We don't win 4 rings since 2004 without taking many, The bad ones seem to never go away in our minds, but we've had so many good ones from Dan D to Theo to Ben to DD.

...gone to graveyards, everyone..."

I wasn't really asking to compare them as closers, but if Eovaldi ends up there (maybe for the playoffs), I'd be okay with the idea, assuming our other starters are healthy and solid. I was more asking about an either-or choice: If we signed Kimbrel, would we prefer him over having Johnson/Velazquez as our 5th starter, instead of our 6th starter.

I'm not saying this was ever the choice, but if you could have only 1 player between Eovaldi & Kimbrel, who would you choose.

We're already outspending the next team by over $25M, so even if they don't get a solid closer, nobody can say we are going "small market" in 2019. WE just might choose to spend our mega millions in other areas.