moonslav59

Sounds like you're an expert on spreading s***.

I'm not sure if out of all the times they made it, those odds are actually lower than random. Therefore, they may not be "selling points" in DD's favor.

True, but the point was did the player traded away create more value after the trade than what we got in return. I see other examples: Melancon for Hanrahan & Holt Lowrie & Weiland for Melancon (if you just count his time here) HanRam and Anibal Sanchez for Beckett & Lowell (if you just count the control years of the original trade, and maybe even if you don't) Stephen Fife for Mirabelli Iggy and Montas for Peavy (who netted us Hembree & Escobar) Lackey for Kelly & Craig Cespedes and A Wilson for Porcello (if you only count the year of control we got from Rick)

Look at Detroit's farm system last year and this year. That's part of what DDism creates.

ERod is a keeper in my book. If Pom could fetch an Espi, trade him (or Buch), if we must trade someone.

I believe, he secretly thinks Buch will way outperform "Steamer's WAR projections", but he doesn't want to debunk his faith in those projections as his major measuring stick of player value over the years. Am I right, hill?

I get your point and don't disagree, but remember, O'Sullivan was our 10th guy on the opening day depth chart for SP'ers, and we ended up starting him 4 times in early May! Later, we had to trade "the next Pedro" for Pom Pom to come up with 5 decent starters. Granted, Buch was healthy when we "had to" trade for Pom, so that's a point in your corner, but waiting until things settle has it's merits, too.

Our pitching staff is set for the next 3 years with 3 CY type pitchers! Thats pretty badass. Now, when we start to shed payroll over the next three years with guys like Hanley, Buch, Panda, etc..we will then sign our young nucleus. Kimbrel has 2 years left, so the best chance window is really just 2 years not 3. We lose $25.5M off the budget next winter (Buch, Young & Moreland) and some more the following winter, so maybe replacing Kimbrel with an acquisition is possible. Devers > Pablo Travis> Moreland Swihart > Young Owens/Johnson> Buchholz and eventually, Hernandez> Holt Groome > Pom

Great post. Much shorter and direct than I could have put it. The new rules have changed the talent acquisition equation.

Winning the AL Central is like finishing 2nd or 3rd in the AL East. I repeat- whoop-dee-freakin-doo. I'll take the rings, even if it means a few last place finishes in the strongest division in the history of the world. I hope to hell DD doesn't go as long as Bobby C and win just one ring, but if he does, it better be with us in the next 3 years, or you're going to have to create a new ID.

I think the ability to use HanRam at DH quite a bit, as he has said he doesn't mind doing, is a big enough plus to outweigh the offense gained by Smith over Moreland. Whatever else we may get back from trading Buch or out of Buch by not trading him would be the gravy on this comp.

It will have to be to a contender, so I'm not sure how we get ML ready SP'ing back. Maybe a three team deal: Buch and one or two of our our-of-options RP'ers (Abad, Elias & Hembree) for prospects. Then, ship the prospects to a non-contender for a more reliable, cost-effective, veteran SP'er (perferably one with an option remaining).

I can see the wisdom in keeping Buch too. 1) We almost always use over 30 starts from our 6th starter down. 2) We can wait to the deadline to trade him and still get under the luxury limit. 3) He's shown he can pitch like the very best MLB has seen in the last 45 years. 4) It's his contract year.

Not "giving him away". Reasons: 1) get a reliable RP'er that is paid little. 2) or get a decent prospect to replace the 20 we've lost in the last 13 months. 3) clear luxury tax space, so we can have the flex to fill a gap later 4) reset the luxury tax from 50% to 20%, so we can go nutty during next winter's much better FA market.

I meant 8/1/17. The trade deadline.

Whoop-dee-freakin-doo! The AL central has been about as strong as AAA baseball during DD's years there. Just win me rings, baby!

I guess Ben has always been high on Josh. Maybe some of that rubbed off on DD.

I just saw that! He'll have to stay on the 25 man roster, so there goes Hernandez back to AAA.

I saw that. I'm glad we got 3 years of Thornburg at less cost.

How about by 8/1/16? And what odds will you give?

Red Sox lose Justin Haley and Aneury Tavarez to the rule 5 draft and take back Josh Rutledge from the Rockies. Josh could just be insurance against Pablo at 3B, and/or he could beat out Hernandez for the utility slot on the 25 man roster. That would force Holt to be the primary back-up at SS.

Rutledge is gone. Travis is probably better suited for 1B in the bigs.

Yes, we had many big scoring games and too many low scoring one run losses, but we consistently scored 3, 4 or more runs- better than any other AL team. Scoring 3 or 4 runs always gives you a chance to win. We did that better than any AL team last year. With an improved staff, maybe we'll start winning more of those low-scoring games. Games with 0-2 runs scored: BOS 38 (18 with 2 runs scored) CLE 40 (12 with 2) TEX 43 (18 with 2) BAL 45 (25 with 2) [This shows our offense gave our team a chance to win more than other AL playoff teams did.] Games with 3-4 runs scored: BOS 31 (14 with 4 runs) TEX 35 (18 with 4) CLE 36 (14 with 4) TOR 45 (20 with 4) BAL 46 (19 with 4) [Again, it's not a bad thing to have less 3-4 run scoring games at the expense of 5+ run games, when your 0-2 run games are less as well.] Games with 5+ runs scored: BOS 93 (24 with 5 runs) CLE 86 (22 with 5 runs) TEX 84 (22 with 5) TOR 74 (26 with 5) BAL 70 (20 with 5) Losses when scoring more than... 4 or more: TOR 19, CLE 21, BOS 23, TEX 27 5 or more: TOR 14, CLE 14, BOS 15, TEX 18 This is telling and speaks to your point: Losses when allowing 3-4 runs BOS 22 TOR 20 TEX 16 BAL 14 CLE 10 but, going 6-8 when scoring 4 runs is also on the pitching as well. We lost 15 games when scoring 5 or more runs. The inians were 7-7 in 4 run games and lost 14 games when scoring over 15. Rangers were 9-9 and lost just 9 games when scoring more than 5. The Jays were 15-5 in 4 run games! and lost 14 when scoring 5 or more. The Orioles were 13-6 in 4 run games and lost 14 games when scoring over 5. I can see if scoring over 5 runs much more than other teams meant we had more games with 0-2 or 0-3 runs scored backing up your point, but that's just not true. Losing one run games was an issue with us this year. I brought it up myself several times. There were many instances where we outscored our opponent in a series and either lost or tied the series. While the offense can take the blame for much of that, as timely hitting just didn't seem to occur much, the pitching staff was to blame as well. Our RP'ers failed to hold leads. They often put us behind early. They lost the close games too.

I was thinking the same thing.

My issue is not with the Sale trade, per se. Or with the Thornburg trade, which I actually like quite a bit. My issue is with the overall body of work that Dombrowski has done in 18 months, namely, gutting the farm. This was my concern with Dombrowski since day one. He certainly has lived up to his hype. DD has basically traded away all but 3 of our best prospects plus a few borderline ones. I'm glad we still have Beni, Devers and Groome, but it's not going to be nearly as easy to rebuild the farm than it seems some people here think it is. There are new international spending restrictions, and just plain winning is going to hurt our draft possibilities. I understand that part of the reason for building a strong farm is to be able to trade for players like Sale. The Sale trade in and of itself would be acceptable, even though we paid a steep price. Gutting a well stocked farm system to 'win now' is not acceptable. To me, if we just took back the Espi-Pom trade, I'd be okay with the "balance" made to win now and still keep a viable farm for the extended future. We have so many young players on the 25 man roster, that I am not worried about the next 2-3 years on the farm. I'm worried about year 4 and 5 and beyond. Devers will be on the 25 man roster with a few years to go by then, but all we have for year 4>> is Groome. Anybody who thinks we can rebuild the farm with multiple, quality players that will be MLB ready in 4-5 years is dreaming. Sure, this team is now in very good shape for about 3 years. But we were in very good shape for 7-8 years, or more, when we had a farm system. What upset me the most about the purge of 2012 was that I thought we played it half way. I thought we should have gone into rebuild mode and gotten more and better prospects rather than ML players or go for broke and try to win it all. Well, we ended up winning it in 2013 by "playing it half way". That proved to me that it can be done. I do admit it appeared Ben was hoarding prospects, but I do believe his plan all along was to trade some of them to fill some key needs, but to keep a better "balance" into the extended future. DD's philosophy is clearly to win it all now. Not trading Groome is like a carrot trying to placate the long term people. It's not going to be enough. This team is going to have serious staffing issues in 4-8 years. Trying to explain away this fact by saying "we'll rebuild the farm again may be true to a small extent, but times have gotten a lot harder for big spenders to stack the farm. I understand your pain, and I'm not going to pretend we'll be okay in 4-8 years, but I am fine with everything, except the Espi deal. We should win at least once in the next 2-3 years, and that's great. We should be able to keep most of our top young talent into the longer term, so we shouldn't be a last place team, but not having the next Betts, Bogey, Beni and JBJ to fill the roster with great talent at a super low dcost is eventually going to bite us in the ass. I'm not going to sugar coat the truth. We should win in the next 2-3, maybe 4 years, and then it;'s going to be wake-up time for some fans here.