moonslav59

I mentioned the Sale trade. After it happened, it took me a couple days to think it was worth it. It turned out to be bad. I've spoken about the Devers trade too much to mention. I shoulda mentioned it on that post.

They do. Imagine if Crawford is healthy and looks like he did before injury. Sandoval. Slaten. Anthony. Abreu Casas Narvaez & Wong, Mayer and others

I'm 100% against Rafaela at 2B. That is one reason I have 100 Sox OF'er trades listed on BTV.

I almost prefaced my reply with, "I'll let Kimmi speak for herself..." Big deals mostly suck for the team- that's me talking.

Drew, when you look at the success rates of the top spending deals in MLB history, maybe you need to "downdate" your perceived market values. Kimmi has firm ground to stand on when saying no to any and all mega large and long deals to older players.

Truth on bad communicators often lose top talent in an organization. I look at the results of all the choices Brez has made and the bad ones made some sense at the time, and I liked the Sale trade when it happened (well a few days later) so I try not be two-faced and bash him for trying to fix 2B by ridding us of just one more oft-injured pitcher who just happened to win the Cy Young the next year. He's done an almost total makeover of the pitching staffs at every level of the system. Almost all is still TBD, but on paper, I like what I see. That's been a sore spot for the Sox since I can remember. The Priester trade looked bad in 2025 but is really very much TBD. Since he was no great known commodity when we dealt him, it's hard to say that was horrible. The Buehler signing was one of his highest dollar choices that completely stunk. Almost every other major to moderate move looks from pretty good to great, except for the few that are still TBD. I think we are on an upward trend, and Brez is a major part of that. (The core left to him is also a significant part, too.) If hsi stiffness and poor communication skills messes up somethings, and it becomes a bigger minus than his pluses, then I'm fine with saying bye-bye.

It pains me to say this, but I'd rather just tell Rafaela you are the FT 2Bman for 2026, so start working out there than put Duran at 2B.

Projecting again? "Bothered? Words matter. Words have meaning. I know, I know- cue-- "You're overanalyzing..."

I'll never disagree with that. Some bad communicators accomplished some great feats, though.

Now, that's not funny! IMO, Cora will pass up Brez, someday, if not replace.

It is kinda funny, if they laughed at BorA$$ saying "Nah, nah, nah, there is no better offer," but there was.

That's "THE" botch?

No Judge and the Yanks are looking at 4th place. No Judge and fried, the Rays may beat em out.

To me, the roster crunch talk is not all that important. If we lose Watson, Moran or even cut ties with Hicks, nobody should lose any sleep. We have enough pitchers with options to keep anyone looking okay to good in ST'ing on the 40 (or 26, if needed.) Crawford, harrison, Oviedo and even Sandoval all have options remaining. If Watson, Moran or Hicks, all with no options, are showing promise, we can keep 1,2 or all 3 and be okay. The everyday roster is a little more complicated. Nobody really knows if Masa can be parked in AAA all year, and that is a big slot on the 26, if forced. I'm not worried about the 40, as long as Eaton, Sogard and someone else I can't remember. Plus, we may trade someone for an infielder and change the whole debate.

That might be the best 13, not counting Hicks, who sucks, but maybe we keep One from Crawford or harrison starting in AAA, so we can have a longer look at Moran and or Watson. Keeping many options is usually the choice made- not the best 13. A lot depends on how these guys look in ST'ing, and of course injury issues.

Maybe we're arguing semantics, but is that a "botch?" If you are playing poker and have a good hand, and you think the other guy is bluffing, but he wasn't, and you lost, was that a "botch" or a well-calculated choice made on teh fact that you had a good hand?

I did find this on Over the Monster... If you’re wondering why Bregman wouldn’t give the Sox a chance to match Chicago, the answer seems to be primarily tied to the Sox’ refusal to grant him a no-trade clause. “Had the Sox granted him no-trade protection and negotiated more favorable deferrals, Bregman would still be with the team, according to a source familiar with the process.” (Pete Abraham, Boston Globe)

We did find out later, that DD almost traded him in summer 2019. Yes, we heard that offer was made. Then, we heard it was not. There was never an "all accounts" on this one, in terms of the specifics on what went down- only the in general, we messed up, badly.

That could be true, but calling a bluff, which turned out not to be bluff, automatically a "botch?"

Is thinking the idea that there was not a higher offer out there, but there was an example of "botching?" If that's your definition then okay, he likely "botched it," but to me it's only a botch, if you were prepared to go higher and win the negotiations but outsmarted/dumbed yourself and missed out on a guy you would have paid more for, okay maybe, bt even then, I'm not sure the term "botch" or "bungle" fits. They called a bluff and lost. If they were never going to go higher or make other concessions,then it doesn't matter. To me, that's the point. People can feel free to focus on other points, but to me trying to guess if an agent is bluffing is common occurrences and not necessarily a GM's botch, if they misguess. Does anybody have a shred of evidence that says Brez could have offered more or given any concessions to top the Cubs' offer?

Came around? My position has not changed one bit. 1. I'm not certain Brez botched anything. 2. Neither are you. 3. If he did, it's concerning, but may not have mattered anyway, if we were never going to up the offer, add a no trade clause or defer less money- whichever might have been needed to get Breggie to yes. I still feel the exact was as before. I never said "all accounts" were wrong. Not even close. Please don't become like the mind-misreading Ole Red.

Yes, I was surprised.

Often differing reports come out years later. Certain parties may never reveal what really happened, especially the ones in the know.

Well, for one thing, there was never an "all accounts" storyline, except maybe in Red's world. I guess it didn't really change recently when Betts made some statements about being surprised when he was traded and how he really wanted to stay in BOS, but as time goes by there are often new tidbits of information from other or new sources that give another side of the story.

I feel like the level of player we need at 2B or 3B necessitates giving high value to get return high value. Of the 4 OF'ers, dues to years of control and all around skill levels, I think Duran ends up being the one most likely to be traded. The rotational depth is harder to rank, and the lower rank means lower return in value. I'm not for trading Bello, but for the right return, I would. I'd rather trade Crawford, Sandoval, oviedo or Harrison to Tolle or Early, but I doubt we can get a good enough infielder for one of them.