moonslav59

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.

Agreed.

I would have traded Moncada for Sale, but I would not have included Kopech, Devers, or Groome in the same trade. My suggestion of Moncada, Pomeranz (who they could flip), Swihart, Basabe and Owens would probably not have done the trick.

That means either Basabe & Diaz are better than I think, or we Devers is not as highly valued as I thought.

That my thought at the time, even before we knew RP'er costs were going to go through the roof.

Probably true, but Thornburg's financial cost is much lower than what Kimbrel's was, and the cost of acquiring good RP'ers is going through the roof. This beats the Soler-Davis trade to death.

Zero sense? Beni hits RHPs better than LHPs. We're not going to rest JBJ and Beni on the same day, so it's very easy to schedule Young to give both Beni and JBJ their normal rest days vs LHPs. With Betts, it doesn't matter as much. I'd rather have Betts "rested" vs RHPs, so maybe that's when Holt can get in a game or two in the OF, or we just play Young vs a few righties.

I'm sure he weighs the costs and revenues against each other in multiple scenarios. Surely, winning not only brings in more money, but it also helps his pride and sense of well-being. Henry has already shown he's willing to pay some taxes, but with the loss of revenue sharing may give him added incentive to stay under, especially if we are very close, as we usually are. Henry paid a 100% tax on the $30M he paid for Moncada, then agreed to have him traded away. The most luxury tax we ever paid was $6M in 2007. We maid $3.4M in 2011, but those two times are the only times we paid over $2M in luxury tax since 2005, and those were all before loss of revenue sharing took effect. My feeling is this, if Henry is thinking that resetting the tax from 50% to 20% is meaningful, and making some money from revenue sharing adds more incentive to reset, it seems like resetting this year makes more sense than next year. I'm not an accountant, and I'm not in on the inner workings of Sox finances, but on the surface, trading Buch for a more reliable pitcher helps us by getting under the limit, making money off revenue sharing, and allowing us to spend big in next winters higher quality FA market, I'm all for it.

I don't see a big purpose for trading Buch for a $5-7M player. Yeah, it slips us barely under the limit, but trading Buch would be to give us flexibility and perhaps replenish the farm at the same time. Just buying a guy like Smith allows us to gain someone else for Buch. I would not trade Buch, unless it is for a decent RP'er with 2-3 years of team control at a much lower cost than $6M next year, or just trade him for a prospect that does not even count against the limit, thereby giving us almost $8M of trade deadline flexibility. That may not sound like mush to some, but when you trade for a player 2/3 of the way through a season, only 1/3 counts against the limit. That means we could trade for one or two players whose yearly contract costs total $24M (1/3 of 24 is 8). That opens up a lot more options. I', also fine with keeping Buch, at least until C Smith returns. Trading Buch at the deadline would save us $4.5M, which not surprisingly, puts us just under the limit.

I meant the 2-4 games of rest they get over a full season. It might as well come vs LHPs. We faced 34 LH'd starters lthis year, so if JBJ and Beni each sit 3 games all year, that's 6 out of 34 where Young might play in the OF not at DH. That's 18% of the platoon for Young. One way to get more PAs for Young is to play him vs some selected righties, either in the OF or possibly at DH, at least when HanRam is resting or injured.

As much as it makes sense to rest Beni and JBJ vs LHPs, you might be right. Playing Moreland vs a LHP is probably worse.

A provocative Instagram post from David Ortiz following news of the trade of Chris Sale to Boston yesterday had some Red Sox fans wondering if their team planned to talk the retired slugger into returning for 2017. But the team has no such plans, Brian MacPherson of the Providence Journal writes. “My boy Sale to Btown? You guys got me thinking,” Ortiz wrote on Instagram yesterday. Red Sox president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski says he thinks Ortiz was joking, and adds that the team will not initiate talks designed to lead to his return. “I wouldn’t want to reach out to him,” says Dombrowski. “I know David well enough — and I know that if he really had sincere interest, that he would call.” MacPherson notes that, regardless of Ortiz’s intentions, he cannot come off the voluntary retired list for the first 60 days of the season. It’s easy to see why Red Sox fans would have interest in his return, however — the Red Sox have had a high-profile offseason without making a high-profile acquisition to fill Ortiz’s spot in the lineup (although they did add Mitch Moreland earlier this week). Ortiz departed last season at the top of his game, having batted .315/.401/.620 while leading the AL or tying for the AL lead in doubles, RBIs, slugging percentage and OPS in 2016.

1) Both Holt and Hernandez hit lefties (barely) better than righties. They are both just barely over .700, but that's way better than what Pablo has done ve lefties. Believe me, I'm not happy with our 3B situation. 2) Young can't play 3B, so there's no connection between Young and Pablo at 3B.

I'm fine with the trades (except Pom>Espi), but I'm not going to pretend we can replace what we had magically and be ready to replace our studs when some hit the open market. I happy as s*** we got Sale and Thorn!

Yeah, but now more of you guys might agree.

Young doesn't affect Pablo. Hernandez and Holt might. When Young is in the OF, we'll have to either settle on Moreland or someone else at DH/1B.

I think 5 have already made the bigs, so I guess you're saying none others will. You really think it's easy to replace Moncada, Espi, Margot, Kopech, and Basabe

Ain't that the truth! That's why I'm suggesting a trade.

Agreed. It's just how I see it right now. Wright, ERod and Pom also had awesome half seasons this year.

It's not easy to replace like 20 traded prospects, especially with the quality prospects we have had. The new rules make it harder for better and richer teams to acquire better prospects. Moncada Espinoza Margot Kopech Basabe T Shaw (not a prospect when traded) Guerra Dubon Aro Wilkerson Allen Basabe (the other one) Rijo V Diaz Asuaje Light Almonte