moonslav59

Not at all thinking traditionally. Betts batting leadoff would be fine if we had lineups from past years that were strong 1 through 9, but that is not the case this year. This is the main point. I'd love to have Betts bat 1st, 3rd and 4th. He's perfect for any slot. Even if he is our best lead off guy, the decision cannot be made in a bubble. One should weigh the differential of Betts batting first vs someone else vs Betts batting 3rd or 4th vs someone else. To me, the drop off from Betts to someone else in the 3 or 4 slot is much greater than the drop off between Betts and Bogey batting first. Bogey does not have the power to bat 3rd or 4th: Betts does. Bogey gets on base close to the same amount of times Betts does, so the much needed high OBP in the first slot does not suffer. While batting third might mean coming up with no men on and 2 outs in the first inning, clearly the guy hitting 3rd has more RBI opportunities over the whole game than the guy hitting 1st. I'll bet my house on that. With a team that lacks power, we need to maximize the positioning of the few guys we do have with power, and Betts is one of them. The Astros have the luxury of batting George Springer first- we don't. Even though Springer leads the 'Stros in HRs with 24, they have 7 other guys on pace for 20+ Hrs.

I truly believe Ben would have made a blockbuster deal like the Sale one. I do not think he'd trade Espi for Pom or Shaw for Thornburg, but I seriously doubt he'd have kept all the top prospects. There just wasn't enough room for all to play, even if he wanted to keep them all. It's impossible to know what he'd have done, but I'm sure his plan did not include total prospect hoarding and no trades or big signings.

They had started playing him in the OF, but clearly our OF is blocked for years to come as well.

So far, no, but I just listed the major acquisitions. I could have listed Aaron Hill, Peralta, Abad and others.

Certainly DD may see things differently than most of us. I've been against many of his trades, although I am not close to thinking he should be replaced. I would not trade what I feel would be needed to get Donaldson. His 2 playoff seasons of team control hold enormous value. He's still a big difference maker at age 31. He's missed some games this year, and his health status would factor into the return needed in trade to get him, but he's still got an .819 OPS, which blows our 3Bmen away. He's also 6th in UZR/150 for all 3Bmen with over 300 innings at the hot corner. Donaldson would probably bat clean-up for us day one. He'd be a huge get for DD. The 2 year window would be greatly improved (on paper). He just might do it. I'm against the trade for two main reasons: 1) I think Devers can help us not only in the same 2 year window as Josh, but also for 3-4 years afterwards. 2) Donaldson's contractual costs will take away our ability to fill other needs next year, including a possible extension to young stud.

Yes, oldtimer made some very keen observations. On Hanley, I don't disagree with anything said, but this has always been Hanley's approach. It might not be textbook, but it has worked for him over his long career. I'm not sure if him trying a new approach would actually be a good idea. It could mess him up badly. I'm not saying HRam has never or can never made adjustments, but he's always seemed to be a free and hard swinger who walks enough to keep pitchers honest. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. It just looks bad wen it fails. We heard the same about Adrian Beltre and his swinging at balls way outside the strike zone, but we all shut up when he had that monster year with us.

To a large extent, I agree, but just because projections saw players like Pablo doing better than they did, does not mean the GM bears no responsibility for not foreseeing a continued decline or injuries compounding. Maybe judging GMs on hindsight is not fair, but it is ultimately how they are evaluated. GMs are praised when the find "gems", like Moreland, Napoli, Cody Ross, so it does seem, in some ways, fair to be critical when the players they get fail to perform to some preset idea of expectations. It's funny, to me, how people bash Ben for tearing apart a great rotation, but he also got bashed (probably by some of the same fans) when Lester went 9-14 in 2012, Beckett 5-11 and no starter ends up with an ERA below 4.50 in 2012. Ben's a hero in 2013, because Lester suddenly learns how to pitch again and Lackey, who was hated by just about everyone, gets healthy and becomes a stud. Buch goes 12-1, and now Ben's a great GM. Then just as suddenly as Ben is great, he sucks again, because somehow he was supposed to know that Napoli, Vic and the champions of 2013 were all going to crash and burn. Lester and Lackey were having good seasons on paper, but nobody else on the rotation was below 4.70. It was Ben's fault that Buch went from 12-1 with an ERA below 2.00 to 8-11 5.54. It was Ben's fault Doubront had an ERA over 6.00, and it was Ben's fault Peavy was 1-9 when we traded him and others away. I know my post is sounding contradictory, but that's how it often goes when evaluating GMs and managers. I'm guilty myself of doing it. GMs are judged by how the players do, and the expectations rarely factor in- rightly or wrongly. It's just what it is. Most of us remember if we liked a deal made by a GM at the time, and we often cut them slack on those deals we felt were good when made. The same is true for deals we did not like: we tend to hold it firmly against the GM when those deals fail. That's natural, but I do notice a tendency for some posters to defend most moves made by GMs, but then when the team stinks, to blame the GM for building a failing roster. There are also some posters who defend or bash just about every move made by a GM regardless of what type of moves they are. I guess that's what makes these sites tick- many different angles and approaches to what we think about decisions made by our team's management.

Lot's of DD players have gotten hurt. Carson Smith (and Roenis Elias) Tyler Thornburg David Price (missed 8-9 starts this year/ $31M and a 4.08 ERA with the Sox) Pomeranz (missed time last year and pitched while injured) Rutledge (re-acquired and on DL) The good: Moreland, last year: Ziegler The great: C Sale

. I think Thornburg had one arm injury over his career. It sure looks like a horrible trade at this point. Shaw doesn't seem to be dropping off a cliff this year.

On pace for 94 wins.

On the farm tonight... Peralta 0-4 Holt 2-4 with an HR Pablo 2-4 Paw Sox give up 5 in the 9th to lose (Noe Ramirez & A Maddox give up a 5-1 lead). Devers 2-4 with an HR and 4 RBI Chavis 1-4 and an RBI Ockimey 2-6 with his 8th HR and 2 RBI

Big win. Finding new ways to win is exciting to watch.

Agreed, and I'd say no. I don't think Groome, Travis and Beeks would be enough. 2 playoff cycles of Donaldson has high value. Top WAR since 2015: 21.6 Trout 17.6 Bryant 17.5 Donaldson 16.5 Harper 16.1 Votto 16.0 Goldscmidt 16.0 Betts (Donaldson also has the 4th best UZR/150 at 3B since 2015.)

I think for most players, the comfort with batting slot placement is over-blown. Some players probably will say they like a certain slot or hate to be jerked around, but even with those players, I wonder if moving them truly lessens their chance of success.

Agreed. While those season's sucked, we had decent expectations in some of them. No way did any expert project last place finishes. I've been a Sox fan since the early 70's. There was a lot more "futility" before the Henry era.

Not really related to this discussion, but remember when VTek turned down that deal then ended up with a fraction of the original offer? Also, Nomar turned down a big deal, got hurt (playing soccer???) and ended up with much less.

You would because he's not a 2 month rental. He's under team control for another year beyond this year.

Yes, and I respect your opinion as well. I will say, I sure am glad we have Pom in the rotation right now.

Interesting. I'm starting to wonder if the Red Sox plan to play start Devers at 3b toward the end of the season and into the playoffs. Thus, Devers would pretty much finish out the minor league season and then would be brought up and would get some experience in major league games, with the idea of starting him at 3b in the playoffs. The idea behind this: minimize Devers' exposure to major league pitching so that pitchers don't adjust and exploit his weaknesses this season. Awful risky making that the plan. If we don't trade for someone and hope Devers can ignite a spark at 3B towards the end of the year, and it doesn't work, then we're back to where we are now but with no other options. [Travis] I'm just not sure if his bat is ever going to be good enough.... Maybe not, but we may have to give him an extended look, so we can save budget space for others. If he flops, at least it's easy to find capable 1Bmen on the cheap (see L Morrison & Moreland).

I'm finished with Pablo. I did not mean to imply I want DD to give him a 3 week chance at the ML level.

Espi had a lot of value. Though he was "far away" he was ranked very highly for a kid that young. True, he could flop, but his upside was enormous. Again, I was never against trading Espi, in fact, I suggested several larger package moves that included him. I'm very happy with what Pom is giving us now, and I'd love nothing better than to have to admit I was very very wrong.

But, it was DD who traded Shaw and put all the 3b eggs in the Pablo basket.

Here's how deep it was last year... PAs against OPS against 275 Bryan Shaw .686 269 Dan Otero .526 264 Cody Allen .584 That's a nice top 3 before adding Andrew Miller 103 Andrew Miller .433 Miller essentially replaced these two: 219 Zach McAllister .731 189 Jeff Manship .750 Then there were these guys as depth (RP'er numbers only): 90 Tommy Hunter .668 82 Joba Chamberlain .616 72 Trevor Bauer .664 70 Kyle crockett .716 49 Mike Clevinger .515 20 Ryan Merritt .350

I do not for a second think that DD would pass up winning a title this year because of the lux tax. It's a three to four year window NOT one. I do think resetting the luxury tax is a high priority, despite what has been said. It is not essential, but I firmly believe that if we don't reset this year, we will next, and that will entail not replacing Young, Moreland and Abad with costly FAs. This means we will need Devers and probably Travis. As much as I hate to think it, I can see Groome being the one traded, if we go large at the deadline. BTW, we can go "large" and still stay under the luxury tax this year as just 1/3 counts.

I'm certainly more optimistic about the extended future than last winter, not only because of some shrewd trades to increase Int'l spending abilities and to sign 3 top young players, but also with a few marginal prospects boosting their stock this summer. I also liked the draft, but do not expect a whole lot there drafting so low in the order. I still see a "cliff" in 3 to 4 years.