moonslav59

Maybe. Don't budge, DD. Have your plan B ready to happen, if needed.

That's the first I heard the numbers were similar. It makes more sense for JD to wait it out a bit longer. If I were DD, I would not go higher than $125M/5. That's already an overpay and a year too long.

I'm not sure. Since it's so hard to identify, we're all just stabbing at the dark. I was never a big Dempster fan, but I was told repeatedly how great he was in the clubhouse, and how he was "needed" to win the ring in 2013. I had and have my doubts on that one. I guess one could say Millar and Mueller were good leaders way back when. I'm not big on the idea we lack player leadership, but I don't think it would hurt to add some.

I do think losing Papi hurt more than just losing his on filed production, but I'm not sure he was all that great at "leadership." It's not an easy thing to identify, so I think it's hard to blame a GM when a team lack it. DD changed the manager. I think that was a big step.

...but by itself, your farm (and recent grads) would not be nearly as remarkable.

I happen to think a good manager can steer the players into taking accountability for their own actions and to help push those who are not to begin doing so. Also, I'm not so sure it's all that easy to identify a "leader" and then to get him here and be sure he fits into our clubhouse. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your position. I do think improved player leadership would help.

I'd like to see JD & Cora make a big difference. I am also expecting a combined uptick from our under prime players (Betts, Bogey, JBJ, Devers, Beni and others). The health of Price, ERod, Smith & Thornburg might be what makes or breaks us.

I guess you weren't around for Reggie, Giambi, Gossage, Mussina, Winfield, Jimmy Key and Kevin Brown. Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. There are many more.

Okay, maybe "grossly" was a poor choice of words. The Yanks certainly always high spenders as the second most spending teams were rarely the same. I'm also guessing the Yanks were easily the highest spending team for decades beforehand.

The decision to trade vets for prospects gave your farm a big boost, and maybe your "analytics" had a lot to do with getting good hauls on most of your deals. The Sox reportedly drafted Betts based on some pretty cutting edge analytics way back when. I'm wondering how many teams copied us.

I'm not disagreeing, but I think this may be an oversimplification. Anyways, how are you so sure that "guy that can lead these sheep" isn't Cora? It's also not that easy knowing what player out there has the leadership skills that match with the needs of this team. It's not like a great leader/player can just walk in the door and get everyone focused and full of fire easily.

The Bruins are pretty good, too. No city has it better right now, sportswise.

I liked us being more aggressive on the base paths. I don't necessarily equate that with "fire & desire". Bonehead plays were made too often that had nothing to do with being aggressive. I'm hoping Cora brings some positive change in a few areas.

Well said. Nobody we have drafted recently is even close to being a lock at becoming even a decent MLB player. We've all seen many players with similar profiles struggle or fizzle out. I have hopes, but I'm not counting on getting much from our farm over the next 2-3 years. The young player acquisition system is much different than even just a few short years ago. Some good players still slip down in the draft due to signing issues. The slot money allotment keeps some of this in check, so this area of winning teams getting gems is much harder now. The international free agent limits are much stricter now. Even the policing of established rules has gotten stricter. I'm curious to see how GMs can build a strong farm while winning consistently for a long stretch. Gaining comp picks and trading for pool money might help, but I'm of a mind that I'll believe it when I see it happen.

Well, that and currently having 4 very competitive teams right now. All look to be strong for 2-3 more years, too.

Are you arguing the Yanks were not grossly outspending all other teams before 2002?

Excellent post. Here's a look at Theo's drafts with the Sox: 2004: (lost 1st round pick for signing Foulke) Pedey (2nd rd) 2005: (6 comp picks for losing Pedro, DLowe and OCab/lost own 1st rd'er for signing Renteria) 1st Rd Comps: Ellsbury & Hansen Supp Rd Comps: Buch, Lowrie, Bowden & Egan 2006: 27th pick Jason Place Supp picks: Kris Johnson, Caleb Clay & Aaron Bates 2nd Rd (71) Masterson 2007: (lost 1st rd for signing Julio Lugo) Supp picks: Hagadone & Ryan Dent 5th rd Middy & 6th rd Rizzo 2008: 30th Casey Kelly Supp: Bryan Price & S Fife 5th Westmoreland & 9th Vazquez 2009: 28th Reymond Fuentes 2nd Alex Wilson 2010: (Lost 1st rd by signing Lackey) Comp pick: Vitek Supp: Brentz, Ranaudo & Workman 2011: (Lost top pick by signing Crawford) Comp picks: 19th Barnes (VMart), 26th Swihart (Beltre), 36th Owens (VMart) & JBJ (Beltre) 5th rd. Betts Theo also signed these international FAs: 2004: Doubront 2005: Dice-K & Okajima 2008: Tazawa 2009: Bogey, Iggy, Montas 2010: J Aro 2011: Margot, Lin

Of course, teams squander high draft picks, even multiple ones year-after-year, but most of the best farms are built with top picks or stockpiling comp picks (or both) plus finding a few good international FAs. Not many perennial winners have built top 6 farms through the draft. Some did it by having an occasional fire sale during an off year (but then they might not be called a perennial winner) or by spending big and being successful with international free agents. Now, that's not as easy as before either. Look at the Sox. We built a strong farm in the early 2000's with stock-piled comp picks and a few good international signings. We built a strong farm the same way with Ben at the helm, but he got a few higher draft picks as well and hit it good with Beni. (The jury is still out on Groome, but where would are farm be ranked now without him?) There certainly are teams that keep their farm pretty strong through winning years, but it's very hard to build to a top 6 level without losing or getting comp picks galore. The Yanks built their farm with comp picks, a few nice 25-35 slot picks (like Judge) and several trades of veterans for prospects.

I don't want to start that wholedebate again, but we had too many metal blunders (fielding & running) that had nothing to do with being aggressive or over aggressive.

I didn't see a lot of "fire" last year. Sure, after a walk-off hit, there was celebration, but I sensed a lack of desire. Also, the mental blunders were a sign of lacking focus, which can, at times, be attributed to not being fully "into it". I'm not big on the whole leadership bandwagon, but I did not see JF as the type of guy to light a fire under anybody. He was too laid back, and I think that rubbed off on the kids.

Every city in the country envies Boston.

How about Tommy Harper? (He's the reason I'm a Sox fan.) That wasn't the 60's either.

Jeter was not taken with a below 20 pick. Rivera and Williams were signed as an amateur FA. Yes, Clemens and others were acquired by trade not free agency, but their salaries were prohibitively high for most teams and outright salary dumps in other cases. I'm not arguing the Yankee farm did not help them win. I'm arguing they didn't build great farms with long stretches of picks below #20. The system is changed now. Let's see what winning GMs can do under these changed conditions.

I thought there was no current GM that has gone 7-8 straight years drafting lower than 20 every year. I guess the sample size is one. My bad. The initial statement was drafting 30th or lower. By the way, the Yanks went 7 straight years drafting below #20 (from 1997 to 2004. They also went 8 straight from 2006 (21st pick with Ian Kennedy) to 2014 with very low picks, but the farm was mostly built with fire sales and comp picks. The Yanks drafted 1st in '91, drafted Jeters 6th in '92 (not with a pick lower than 20). They drafted... 13th in '93 20th in '96 17th in '05 no first rd in 2014 16th in '15 18th in '16 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Yanks lose a few first round picks due to signing type A or QO free agents? If so, I'm not sure one should use that as an excuse for having low picks due to winning too much.

Last year saw 2 of the top 3 record teams make the series, and the Cubs & Guardians were two of the best in 2016, but before that, one could argue "crap shoot" pretty strongly. While the Royals had the best AL record in 2015, nobody felt they'd win. Their rotation was one of the weakest ever to win a WS, and they played in a weak division. The Mets were total crap shoot. The two wildcard teams had 7-8 more wins than the Mets. In 2014, two wild card teams made it to the WS. The Sox won in 2013 with 3 last places sandwiched around it. In 2012, the Giants won despite having the worst record of the 3 NL division winners. They beat a Tigers team that had a worse record than a team that missed the wild card! (DET 88 wins & TBR 90). STL won the WS as a wild card in 2011, and on and on. .