moonslav59

Nobody ever said the cliff was certain. Your half-ass apology is hard to accept, since your reading comprehension skills are unrivaled among posters on this site. Yes, I went into details on how the cliff might be avoided. It's not the first time I've brought up those possibilities. I've gone out of my way to avoid talking like the cliff will be some sort of long standing abyss. I've said we will most likely not be highly competitive for a couple of years or so starting in 2020 or 2021. it could last longer depending on DD's draft picks and international signings. I seriously doubt we trade any established and valuable vets for prospects unless we are in the middle of a lost season and look to deal away rentals. I think we will be too good for that to happen before 2020. Anyone who speaks of the extended future is speculating, and my position is that due to the trading away of so many highly rated prospect in such a short period of time coupled with the tightening up of the rules on drafting, international signings and increased penalties for going over the luxury limit, it willbe very difficult to keep a highly competitive team from about 2020 or 2021 to 2023 or so. It just my opinion. I'm not calling anyone dumb for disgreeing. Yes, there will be dozens and dozens of moves made by 2021, but we can all see how difficult it is to improve the team to near top contender status, even with a possible $40M or so to spend this year. It seems it will only get more difficult as we look to replace lower paid hugh producers in kind from the FA market and a depleted farm. One good thing about our current farm is that most of the best prospects look to be 2-3 years away, although those who cheered the trading away of lower level prospects as long shots seem to be putting faith in them for 2021 now, even though the ones we have now are lower ranked than what Ben left DD. I guess that's what puzzles me. I've yet to get a satisfying answer to that point. Anyways, I'm glad we are where we are. I like what DD has done, even though I've disgareed with some moves here and there. I see us as being highly competitive for 2 maybe 3 more years and we were pretty competitive for the last 2 years. That's a nice 4-5 year stretch. I happen to think Ben was building towards a longer stretch, but without maybe as high a degree of chances at winning it all as DD has provided us. I'm more about rings than seats at the crap table, but it seems I'm a minority on that one. (I'm not claiming my way is the right way here either.) And, no I am no getting angry. People around me know me to be one of the calmest people they know. It takes a lot to get me angry.

Travis Sawchik wrote... "...reason a club might consider sacrificing a draft pick and/or international pool money for him [Moustakas] is that, unlike teammate Eric Hosmer — who is perhaps the greatest free-agent landmine in the class — Moustakas has demonstrated real improvement in his 20s and might continue to get better." https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mike-moustakas-is-the-former-royal-you-want/

With arguably 4 bench roles to be filled for opening day, we seemingly have too many players out of options. C: 0 Leon 0 Swihart (Jake Romanski not on 40 man roster) IF 0 Marrero 1 Holt 2 Hernandez 2 Lin (Quiroz not on 40 man roster) 1B 0 Swihart 1 Holt 2 Travis (Chavis not on 40 man roster) OF 0 Brentz 1 Holt 2 Lin

1) Nobody has said it is a "certain result", so this is "strawman". 2) Saying our position is "completely unsupportable" sounds as condescending as anything Kimmi and I have said about non believers positions. Of course the cliff might not occur. We could restock the farm with lower than before draft picks and more difficult international signing rules. We could trade vets for prospects, but that almost presupposes we have a sucky year or do something we've never done before: trade key vets during a winning season. I have said numerous times, I'm happy with DD's draft picks and internation signings. It's unfortunate Flores died, but I still think we've done better than I expected under the new rules and with the lower picks that came with winning. We also will not have to re-sign everyone coming off the books, especially HRam, Porcello and Pablo, but others will be very difficult to replace in kind without spending large or expecting a prospect to rise quickly to great hieghts. Notjing is impossible. Betts and others were drafted in lower rounds. I guess if DD had a track record of building strong farms with low picks, I'd feel a little better, but it's hard for me to believe that trading away so many highly, nationally ranked national is not going to bite us in the ass years from now. Of course speculative topics like this can never be locked down supported with evidence, but we can speak to the chances or odds of something happening or not happening. I'm fine with those who shun that sort of speculation, and I really do not mean to sound condescending to those who do not agree with me. I know neither side can prove anything when we talk about the extended future. Heck, we can barely know what will likely happen next year. I get that. Of course, every single prospect we traded could bomb out, and DD would look like a genius, even if we win no rings. Nobody seemed to care what HRam and Anibal Sanchez did with the Marlins once we won that ring in 2007. I suspect the same would be true if we win in the next year or two. if we don't and those prospects go on to great things, Dd will be judged harshly wether we hit a cliff or not.

My guess is the price will be too high when compared to the cost of Santana.

I totally agree. There's a lot of gray area between every differing opinion. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure at least one poster has said the trades of all those prospects will not affect our longterm future. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry for bringing that point up. I never meant to imply many posters here (or you) are blind to possible negative affects to trading prospects or vets.

I totally agree, and although I come off as being a Ben defender or apologist, I was red hot against the Pablo signing from day one. I was also against the HRam signing but understood the reasoning behind it. I was against the Vic & Dempster signings. I despised the Masterson signing. I disliked more trades and signings than I liked, but to me, the way Ben built up the farm was pretty impressive. Was it enough to offset the bad? probably not, at least during his tenure as GM, but his strength area was the future, and he left before his plan really had a chance to come to fruition. I disliked many of Theo's moves, especially after the Nomar deal. I've disliked many of DDs moves, I haven't called for a GM's head since Haywood Sullivan. I wasn;t sad to see Lou Gorman go, but I wasn't ever calling for his head.

I don't mean to sound condescending. I do find it hard to believe some feel our future will not be affected by trading away so many of our top prospects in such a short period of time, especially from a farm that was ranked so highly- not by just me but by many national services. I'm fine with those who believe we can and will find other ways to stay competitive or those who feel it isn't worth thinking so far ahead when it's so hard to project anything in baseball. I will sat sometimes I feel some who disagree with those who believe in some sort of cliff can come off as condescending as well. I for one, am happy we have different viewpoints, and I respect just about everyone's opinions on this site- even ones I often disgaree with.

Some who are critical of DD are concerned that getting to the "crap table" long term was sacrificed in order to give us a shorter term of going to the crap table with a better chance at winning within a 3-4 year window. I, for one, do think we have less of a chance from 2020 or 2021 forward for a couple years or so, but I'm fine with going for it all as long as it wasn't just for a 1 to 2 year shot. If the goal is just to get to the playoffs as many years as possible, then I can certainly sympathize with those who feel we did not need to trade as many prospects as we did to still make the playoffs in 2016, 2017 and theoretically 2018 and 2019. Other seem to just criticize any GM no matter what they do.

The hole would be in the farm, once again. I don't see the CWS wanting ML players, unless they have 4+ years of team control.

Brentz did hit 30 HRs in 2011 (A and A+), so it's not like he just learned how to hit. He also hit 19 HRs in 368 PAs in 2013. Yes, that was long ago, and his lack of power in between was striking, but there is hope he can do it at the ML level.

Well, the loss of the prospects used to get Kimbrel and Pom are part of the window closing a year or two after their time is up. They are related...just not immediately.

If we do indeed go over the limit by $20-39M this year, resetting the tax will save Henry millions and millions of dollars. Of course it matters.

The "cliff" does not start after 2018, when we lose Kimbrel, Pom and Porcello. (Sale's time is up after 2019.) Most believers in the cliff think 2020 or 2021 will mark the beginning of the end of a highly compeitive team.

I'd hate to see JBJ go. He's one of my favorite players. Abreu is a good hitter with power and a plus defender. If the plan was to sign JDMartinez and move him to 1B, then the Abreu gain on defense at 1B would offset part of the loss of JBJ's defense in CF. I think it would take some of our best prospects to get Abreu. I'd rather just pay the penalty for signing QO free agent Santana. Here are some Sox players with 4+ years of team control: ERod 4 Barnes 4 Hembree 4 (out of options) Marrero 5 (out of options) Swihart 5 (out of options) Hernandez 5 Beni 5 Scott 5 Taylor 5 If the CWS wanted some of the 3 guys out of options, plus a prospect or two, I might be okay with a trade, but signing Santana or JD makes more sense to me.

The CWS are rebuilding and cutting costs. JBJ has one more year of control than Abreu. JBJ will likely have high arb numbers in the next 2 years. If we trade for Abreu, it might be Travis (or Ockimey), Groome and Beeks, or something like that.

I think he says no to STL.

I'd hate to trade JBJ and pay $18M for Abreu. I think the CWS would want prospects.

I never said he was ML ready. I said he was close to ML ready. That's pretty easy to understand, too. It's also a bit subjective. We can argue if 2-3 years is "close" or not. I think close is a year or two away maybe up to 3 years. I don't count the first year, because the first year is ML ready. I'm fine with anyone who thinks he was not close. 2/12 to 3 years is not 1-2 years.

I missed the opt out clause he had in his contract. I would not give up too much for a $17M 1Bman. I like him better than Santana & Hosmer, but the prospects going to Chicago would outweigh the QO penalties, IMO.

I'm thinking the prospect cost will be similar due to the money differential.

Yes, and our 4th OF'er should never play, unless someone gets hurt or needs a rest, and since all our OF'ers are pretty young, that may amount to 10-15 games total all year. I know there's not much to talk about, but who are 4th OF'er is is a minor talking point. I'm fine with giving Brentz a look.

Yes, I'd feel fine with any of our OF'ers in CF.

Exactly. Until I see JH spending way over the limit, or he says he's willing to do so, I'm going to assume he wants us to stay near it- like we have just about every year.

His luxury tax is only $11.3M, but I'm fearful of what we'd have to give up to get him.