moonslav59

Watching the Rangers-Yankee game. Texas now up 9-5!

Mata moved from 16th to 5th on soxprospects.com (before this game). Once Devers graduates, he could move to #1 or 2.

Go Rangers!

No way. I wasn't counting HRam as a positive for the team we trade him to. He was meant as a "salary offset". With the salaries Votto and GS have and their ages as the contracts wind down, I think you are overvaluing their trade value. Beni (plus others) might be needed but not Betts and Beni.

Forcing Bobby V might have been the beginning of the beginning of the end.

Hopefully we won't be down 2-1 for game 4 of the playoffs, which should be ERod or Porcello's start.

Good thing Reed didn't step in it.

Wow, two crooked numbers in one game...within 4 innings!!!!

Yeah, but did I mention that Archer had let up 3Hrs by Betts before tonight?

He had 3 HRs vs Archer before tonight.

If we want Machado, my point was that I doubt we can go large this winter, too. I'm fine, if we do and JF pays the tax. I mentioned signing someone to a one year deal as a bridge to Machado.

I agree. I think it was a steal. Gray is an ace who has had injury issues. He looked healthy when the deal went down. It's shocking to see how many great pitchers have been traded starting with Sale: Quintana, Gray, Darvish and someone else I can't think of right now.

I don't mind doing research, but that would be too daunting for even me. I'm actually kind of surprised there seems to be so much dispute over the amount of mental mistakes there have been this year. I knew there might be some disputes over what is mental vs Physical (like Holt's double-clutch and throw), but I'm kind of surprised some feel the number is so low as to not have affected even one game result. Even thinking blunders making a difference in just 1 or 2 games is a bit surprising to me.

Machado is not a FA this winter. Waiting for 2019 is a plan, if we just sign someone like Morrison or Duda to a one year deal this winter, but neither solves our high need for a big bat.

Following up on the idea of trading for Stanton or Votto and including HRam as a "salary offset". Here's how the numbers unfold: Votto is owed $157M/6 (including the $7M buyout of 2024, or $170M/7 if they keep him for 2024). Forget bringing up the age issue for now, let's look just at the financial numbers. While $157M/6 comes to over $26M a year. That's a lot, but the luxury tax cost is "just" $22.5M a year. That's basically what HRam makes. Cincy has no luxury tax concerns. They look at the $26M/yr number while we look at the $22.5M number. This alone makes this type of deal worth looking at from both sides. If we made this trade (HRam and some very good young talent) for Votto, we'd barely add any luxury tax dollars to our budget for 2018 and maybe 2019 (depending on HRam's vesting option). That would allow us to sign a top free agent, perhaps to replace a key young player included in the trade (like maybe Cozart, if we traded Bogey as part of the deal, Moustakas if we decide to move Devers to DH or JD Martinez, if we traded an OF'er). Stanton: The same type of financial situation applies here. Stanton is owed $292M/10. That's $29M a year, but the luxury tax hit is "just" $25M a year--not bad for a team like the Sox trying to avoid paying a mega luxury tax. Including HRam in the deal would mean GS only costs us about $3M for the next two year (in the "window"). We'd be hit hard afterwards as we would be with Votto, but we'd be fine for 1-2 years still within the so-called window of our high chance of winning a ring. If we include a player like Bogey or JBJ, we'd be able to subtract their arb costs over the next few years, but we'd have to replacee them in kind somehow.

Moving HRam might involve paying $10-12M out of the $22M owed next year (and maybe 2019 as well). I'm not happy with the defense of Nunez at 2B, SS or 3B, but his bat should more than make up for it. He's no Holt. I've mentioned trying to include HRam as a salary offset piece, if we go after Stanton or Votto, but I'm not sure how realistic that can be.

We also could have played HRam at 1B and benched Moreland. To me, Nunez should play tonight.

The double clutch or hesitation suggest mental uncertainty on what to do not some kind of physical ailment or lack of physical skill. Lack of 1B experience can be part of the reason for the mental blunder, but mental it was.

No Nunez?????????? For a team struggling to score runs, I'm not sure why we bench the guy who has 2 hits in each of the last 3 games and has gotten on base in 7 of his last 17 PAs.

Good point. Assuming we acquire a heavy hitting 1Bman this winter, do you think we should still try hard to bring Nunez back?

moonslav, you probably know better than I about how many blunders this year vs. prior years. In an alternate answer I wrote but didn't send, I opined that those blunders (or whatever) are probably getting a whole more attention this year than in prior years. One explanation is that suddenly these guys have turned into zombies and forgotten how to play baseball. Despite the rigorous and unique professional apprenticeship required of all MLB players, to say nothing of the sheer redundancy of playing all those games, 6 a week for 26 weeks, before which everybody practices (and hones) basic skills, inattention and unprofessionalism swept thru the Sox. I'm not saying dogs living with cats, but still some pretty bad stuff. No wonder talksox has been in an uproar. We need the ghostbusters. I've been railing on and on about mental blunders (and lack of "fire and desire") a long way back. I was catching grief for continuing to criticize even during our winning streak/stretch not long ago. I'm not enjoying carrying that banner. I've never tracked and counted mental blunders from year to year, so it's just my opinion that this team is way out in the lead in mental blunders among Sox teams since I started following the Sox back in the early 70's. Or maybe some of what we are seeing is because this is the first year in recent memory when baserunning--and there has been a lot of the aggressive form of it--has been so pervasive and even necessary. When Ortiz is hitting dingers and others are following suit, when the OPS's are up, and when your team is scoring 100 more runs than the next best AL league team, who the heck cares about running out grounders, stretching singles, etc? My beef has actually been more about defensive mental blunders not base running ones, but I have been very careful to separate running into outs out of an aggressive approach. With our team speed we should be more aggressive than years past. I'm not talking about those plays. I do think we have run into more outs solely from mental mistakes than I've ever seen a Sox team do, but not by as much as mental blunders on defense. Again, that's just my opinion, and I have no data to support it. I know, shocking, isn't it? moonslav has no data! Plus the Sox baserunners historically have not been adventurous--at least in the John Henry era--because the hitting and scoring machine was usually functioning just fine. That ended when Ortiz retired. Again, adventurous is not the same as boneheadedness. So what I am saying is that we are seeing more in part because we are looking for more. We don't have the dingers and the semi-automatic great scoring to keep us satiated. We ain't scoring and we ain't winning (enough) and the blame game is on. I see it like this, since HRs are way down for the Sox and only the Sox and timely hitting has also been a challenge, we can't afford making dumb mistakes on the base paths and on defense. Maybe these mistakes do "stand out" more now, because we are not in 14-4 games much anymore, but I really try to be unbiased when identifying a mistake as mental vs physical or slight over aggressiveness. I did find that Holt game. It was August 21 when we lost to Cleveland when they scored on a late and bad throw by Holt. I've rewatched the video several times and cannot honestly call it a bonehead play. In fact, I thought Holt was really aggressive getting to the ball instead of the pitcher who was closer but Holt was in better position to throw to 3b. I think he paused for one of two reasons--either he didn't have a good grip on the ball, or he was thinking he doesn't make that play very often at all. In fact, I'll bet you that's the only time while playing 1b this year or last year or the year before when he had to throw from 1st to 3d on a bunt. Remember, that's the least likely position Farrell has him play. I saw it differently. I felt he wasn't sure where or if to throw it all, until it was too late. The fact that JF had Holt in the game at all is another issue I'd be happy to debate. Yeah, he was playing a position (1B) he doesn't play much. I'm not really dwelling on why a mental mistake was made, but to me, that was clearly a mental blunder. I can understand others not seeing it that way, but I seem to recall the game thread having a majority of posters wondering why Holt held onto the ball for so long. It wasn't just my opinion. Either way I give him a pass because to me it was a tough play. It was the errant throw, not its lateness, that caused us to lose. That suggests the grip was faulty and that what we saw was just an error and not boneheadedness. I completely agree it cost us the game. You really didn't see the long hesitation (double clutch) before throwing the ball? That was the blunder- not the throw.

Makes sense. I would call Vaz FT now, not Leon. Or, I might call it a platoon- not based on L v R but based on who is starting..

I said it could be 5-10 games. I'm pretty sure it's closer to 4-5 than 0-1. To me it's more outlandish to think dozens and dozens of blunders that led to outs or took away outs to our opponents did not lead to any losses at all, yet you choose to call my claim of 4-5 and possible 5-10 as outlandish- not the claim of zero. Maybe I'm overestimating how many mental blunders there have been. Maybe I'm wrong about how many runs have been lost or given away as a result of dozens of mistakes. Maybe I'm wrong about how many of those runs actually affected a game's outcomes. I realize the highly speculative nature of this debate. I've said it over and over again, unlike Max claiming seemingly matter-of factually that we have not lost any games due to mental blunders. I know I have used the words "I am certain" we've lost games due to mistakes, but I have gone out of my way to say I can never prove my position. No matter how much anyone analyzes each game and each mental blunder, we can never know for sure. I do not think it's "outlandish" to think we've lost more than a couple games and closer to 4 or 5 than 0-1. Maybe 6-10 is a stretch, but I do think it's possible within the context of "butterflies flapping their wings in China." I will say, I feel pretty certain we've lost more than just 2 games as a result of blunders. 4-5 seems very realistic. 6-10 is maybe as outlandish as saying zero, do you agree with that?

Hypothetical scenario...not even if he starts 162 games and more than anyone else on the team?

I get your point, but I think someone who could and should start 150+ games should be called FT not a sub- regardless of how many positions he plays. Is HRam a FT player for us? He's only DH'd 98 times in 140 games. He's played 1B 17 times. He did not start in 26 games- some due to injury, which shouldn't be held against a player being called FT. Nunez will likely end up playing over 130 games this year and end up with over 550 PAs. I don't really care if he's called a super sub or not. I called him that myself, but being a super sub doesn't mean you can't also be called full time. As of now, Nunez has more PAs than JBJ, Pedey, Vaz and Leon. He's not far from Moreland and HRam. All are considered FT, because they mostly play 1 position. Some have missed time due to injury. Maybe it's all semantics, but maybe we can agree to call him our FT sub.