moonslav59

It turns out there is an option on the Buehler deal. That makes it better, to me, although it's a "mutual option," so if he does great, he'll say no. $3.05M signing bonus. $15M contract $3M buyout on 2026 option of $25M. So, here is my question: if we want him back, and he says no, we don't pay the $3M, right? That should makes the 2025 contract only $18.05M, if it works out as I suggested it might. I wish it was a 100% team option.

We need a lot to go right to be "better," but that was said every year, since the obvious 2020 decline season. We could simply look at Anthony, CamPbell and Mayer and think we will be better. We could simply hope for better luck with injuries and nice returns to form from Story, Casas, Yoshida and full seasons from Devers, Ref, Gio, Hendriks, Slaten and others and think we will be better. We can hope Chapman, Wilson and Hendriks will do better than Jansen and Martin, but I think this is only a hope. I do think our rotation looks better on paper: Crochet > Pivetta and the return of Gio gives us another choice. Maybe Sandoval returns in August. It looks fine to be optimistic here. The defense will be better, if Story returns. If we play DHam more at 2B or try Campbell there, we should be better there. Unless we trade Abreu, our OF defense should improve with more OF time for Rafaela, Abreu and maybe Anthony than we saw O'Neill and Ref get in 2024. Our corner IF and C still suck on D. On paper, we should be better. It does look like TOR, TBR and BAL did not do much to improve, on paper. I'm not sure the loss of Soto, Torres, Holmes and Cortes was made up by the additions of Fried, Devon Williams and others. Our additions range from very nice (Crochet with some durability concerns) to a risky Chapman to an eye on 2026 Sandoval. Others like Wilson and Narvaez are not spectacular, Our back up catcher declined, on paper. I guess we look like an overall plus. but didn't we need a clear and significant plus?

I just asked for your opinion. You don't have to give it. It's not a witness stand, but normal conversations and debates usually see both sides answering each others' questions. I'm not sure why you see asking twice as being contentious. You rebutted many of my points made. I did not view that as being contentious. You made a statement that that we "go along with it because it seems like the thing to do. " I chose not to view that as contentious, but I guess it's all about perspective, but when someone disagrees with you- they are being "contentious." It's never you.

Well, I was asking for your opinion on what group you felt was best. I guess we'll never know. Of course, it's all opinion, even to those who value fWAR more than wins. I don't know all the algorithms and calculations fWAR makes, but I do know it takes into account batting, fielding and running based on analyzing years of data to determine what events on the field is more likely to lead to a run being scored. Then, they break it down to runs created or lost, for batters. For pitchers, they look at events that relate to run prevention and scsale to how much a pitcher has pitched, and this is why pitchers who pitch way more innings might have a higher WAR than a better pitcher with less IP. fWAR is a quality and cumulative number, which makes it difficult to compare to other traditional stats. BA does not account for more PAs. HRs and RBI can and often do. fWAR uses FIP as it's main value determinator, and I think that is flawed. (FIP is Fielding Independent Pitching, which basically counts HRs, Ks and BBs and does not look kindly at good pitchers who induce many weakly hit balls but do not K many batters.) fWAR does make some adjustments, like a pitcher's defense behind them. I don't need to know all mechanisms to trust that their numbers are useful. I trust they know the math and have refined it over the years. I don't use WAR very often. I prefer the flawed combo stat OPS and OPS+ for batters and OPS Against for pitchers, as well as ERA-, which factors in parks and defense over just ERA and Wins or winning %. But that's just me and my opinion. The way I see it, if Wins was a major factor in determining the best pitchers, I'd like the wins leader board about as much as ERA and WAR leader boards. I don't, and that sort of confirms my bias.

I think we all know why he didn't sign w BOS, and this one is not about JH's stinginess.

I tried not to cherry pick a sample size, so I searched the pitchers by GS since 2020 until I found a group 5 or 6 pitchers within 10-12 GS of each other. Here what I found (411-423 GS) W-L list 198-127 Wainwright 169-135 Felix 165-142 Zito 163-122 Hamels 160-154 AJ Burnett 146-142 Lohse fWAR List 54.1 Felix 51.7 Hamels 46.5 Wainwright 41.6 AJ Burnett 30.6 Zito 24.1 Lohse ERA 3.42 Felix & Hamels 3.54 Wainwright 3.98 Burnett 4.02 Zito 4.41 Lohse Just my opinion, but fWAR and ERA are ordered almost the exact same, and both look way better than the Wins list or even win% list. Do you disagree?

How do you know the reasons we "go along with it?" I don't know a single person who goes totally by fWAR to determine who did better over whatever sample size is chosen. Not one. So, "going along with it" means just using it as one more fact to use to choose who you think is best. W-L tells mostly what team is best and what pitchers happened to meet a weird criteria for giving the win to one guy over the other. Why does it help to know what 21 wins means over 19, when we know the way of choosing the "win" is highly flawed? No, I don't know exactly how fWAR is determined, but I know it's not based on warped rules about 5 IP and if your team happened to have scored more at that point in the game- not to mention run support and great vs poor defenses behind the pitchers in question. When I look at teh lists of fWAR and ERA, or ERA+/ERA- leaders vs Wins leaders, I fell very confident the fWAR and ERA measures are not only better, but way better at telling me who the better pitchers are. I'm not saying you go by just wins, but you seem to count it more than fWAR. I've tried to answer your Qs as best and fully as I can. Why not answer mine? Of the 3 groups of pitchers I listed from 2022-2024, which group did you think was better? Both looked flawed to me.

That's a non answer. I asked who is better a 20-11 vs a 19 and 9 guy. How do you tell the difference on who is better? Please answer, then say why.

It's easier to say a 2.8 guys is better than a 2.6 guy than it is to say 20-11 is better than 19-9 or even 19-6 or 21-17.

Who is the better group of pitchers over the past 3 years? Group A: F Valdez, Z Gallen, Z Wheeler, C Bassitt, J Berrios & Logan Webb/Wacha or Group B: Wheeler, Webb, Gausman, Nola, Cease, Valdez, Skubal/Burnes or Group C: Fried, Skubal, Snell, Wheeler, Valdez, Burnes, Verlander/Steele __________________________________ Group C is by ERA (300+ IP), Group B is FWAR and Group A is Win totals.

Kinda like you measure the difference between a 20-11 SP'er and a 19-10 one.

He might be the most likely to be signed player left on the market. Maybe Estevez or Kittredge are tied for the most likely RP'er we sign, but we could also trade Abreu for a RP'er. Speaking of "taking the cheap way," how about this: Sign Grichuk and Estevez. Trade: Abreu for Victor Caratini C (1 yr at $6M) and Luis Garcia RHP (2 arbs remaining) Garcia before the injury ('21-'22) 26-16 3.60 (113 ERA+ in 56 GS & 131 IP. 1.15 WHIP. Caratini had a 113 OPS+ in 2024 at age 30. Top half in throwing, framing and blocking in '24. Is this enough to call the winter barely successful?

Good to see you, again, and congrats on UConn's bowl win. Carlos Narvaez played 6 MLB games, last year and is ML ready. He's plus on D. He showed some HR power and OBP skills in the minors. Seby Zavala has played parts of 5 seasons in MLB with over 185 games played and over 550 PAs. I'd like to see a trade for someone like Sean Murphy, but what would we have to give up? (notin suggested Story.)

While we do look "all set," except for catcher and RP, there is still some "upgrading" that is needed, IMO, especially thinking RHB and a top RP or SP, not just "pen help." I'm sure they are set with the SP'ers we have.

I would like to see the "Win" rules be updated, and I guess we could go back and retroactively change awarded wins from the past, if we wanted to (unofficially.) I still think "wins" would still not capture who pitches better. Run support is a major factor in a pitcher getting a win or not, and that has nothing to do with his skills, and it never will, no matter what the rules are.

I was a box score nut, too. That was such a fun team to watch. Kids (Lynn, Rice, Evans, the gutsy Burly and Cooper, all under 25) and vets (Yaz, Rico, Fisk, Carbo & Doyle,) Tiant & Lee. While Wise, Cleveland, Pole, Moret, Drago and Burton did okay. We basically made it that far on 2 arms: Tiant & Lee- both with 260 IP. (Wise had 255.) We used only 12 pitchers in 1975 and only 10 with more than 7 IP (all over 48.) Tiant, Lee and Wise pitched an astounding 54% of all the team's IP in '75.

In reality, the best fits for the Sox on the FA market are Scott, Hoffman and maybe Yates or Estevez, but I'm not sure Brez is serious about any of them. Santander and Profar might fix the RHB issue, but also means trading away or GG RF'er, so Anthony is not blocked. Bregman fixes the 3B defense issue and halfway fixes the RHB issue, but Cora wants him at 2B, so I don't even want to let him screw that one up. Flaherty or Pivetta are attempts to upgrade the 4-5 slot in the rotation and not worth the cost. Alonso and a Casas trade for pitching might work. It fixes the RHB issue and improves the staff, but it ain't happening. I can't see any other FA options that move the needle, greatly. Did I miss anybody? Trades just weaken another area, even if just depth.

He fits the 1 year plan, very well.

Because there is nothing else left that we can get to improve the team. Bregman at .795 and plus defense would be a good addition, even if at a massive cost. Arenado at .725 and near GG defense would be a good addition and a reasonable cost, if my suggested trade, involving Rafaela and $10M a year paid by STL is accepted. He'd cost less than $10M AAV x 3 years. Despite his bat being in serious decline, and his age pretty much ruling out some great offensive resurgence, the big plus on 3B defense would help all our pitchers do better. We might even see 1B defense improve with Devers playing 80-90 games there. I can see why nobody gets a thrill out of either of these guys. Bregman was far down on my list of who to spend large and long on. Arenado may not really fix our RHB need, as he has sucked vs LHPs for 2 straight years. Maybe going after Santander or Profar, tehn trading Abreu and or Rafaela for pitching and or catching is a better idea. There really aren't many great ideas left, even if we do spend. (BIG IF, there!)

I'm back to giving up hope on us spending, and on top of that, I'm not thrilled with anything that's leftover. I'd say Scott, but no way we even make him an offer. JH has spent on Chapman and Hendriks, which is essentially over $20M for just one 2025's pen. (We could likely have gotten Scott for $16M AAV.) Another prime example of what you get for one and done's vs better players on longer deals.

Bregman is already past his "earlier productive years." .902 OPS '16-'20 (142 OPS+) .795 OPS '21-'24 (122 OPS+) Also .795 OPS from '20-'24 and .911 (144) '16-'19

Wow- 50 years! That season was what set me off on being such a rabid Sox fan. As a teen, I kept score of nearly every game- mostly by radio.

Great read! Thanks. One could say it's an accident we acquired Anthony as a comp pick, but when you get really good players and they bolt, comp picks are part of the equation. We seem to do much better with comp picks than our own, even if our own are higher picks. Here is a look back in time: the last 20 years.... 2005: 6 comp picks, but lost 3 for signing Renteria, Wells & Clement: added Ellsbury & Lowrie (Cabrera) That Nomat trade kept giving and giving (see Kopech) 2006: Daniel Bard (Damon) 2008: Stephen Fife (for not signing Hunter Morris) 2010: Workman (J Bay) 2011: Barnes (VMart) and JBJ & Swihart (A Beltre) 2012: B Johnson (Papelbon) 2014: Kopech (Ellsbury) 2022 Anthony (ERod), C Coffey( for not signing J Fabian, later flipped for DJansen) 2023: K Campbell (Bogey) and Reimer (Nate)

We had a lot of holes to fill after 2019. In large part to the cuts in spending, we had to spread the money out to fill all the needs with barely replacement level or better players. What gets me now is that I feel like we had a pretty deep roster- not great, but good enough. We did not need to fill 6-15 slots on the 40 and 5-8 on the 26, we really needed 3 key holes filled and maybe 2 minor ones. Major: Ace, Closer, RHB Minor: Catcher, more pitching We've been spending money, every year, usually barely replacing what goes out the door, each winter, if that, but spending $50M+ should get you 3 slots filled and maybe the 2 minor ones, too, but we keep spending the money on just 1, and more recently some 2 year deals. Hell, we even made the biggest trade since Sale and got only a 2 year guy. Not spending as much is huge. I've never argued against how much that sucks, and JH should be roasted for it. He did show some minor blips of going back to spending in cycles, but not near what he did, before, namely Story then Yoshida. We chose to spend: that's what gets me, It's how we spend it that irks the hell out of me, and it's not changing. I fully understand the lesson of David Price. Really, I get it, but when you need an ace, and you spend on Richards, Kluber, Wacha, Hill, Gio, Sandoval and Buehler, you are spending a lot of money, and getting nowhere fast. The money on new starting pitching has increased, pretty consistently since 2018, but the template remains the same: pillow contracts (Buehler & Wacha), aging once good/great pitchers (Kluber, Richards, Hill) or pitchers who were very good, but not recently (Giolito.) We never sign a really good SP'er with a durable history and recent success. Price was the last one. We traded for Sale and Nate (and Pom & Wright), and extended/re-signed both, but when it comes to adding new SP'ers, our failure is why we have sucked since 2018. We can argue about the Sale and Nate extensions, but here are the SP'ers we added via free agency and their cost: 2 year spending, not counting 2020, although it should count, as it was the year the team was blown to pieces. AAV Zero in 2018 & 2019 combined. (I'm not counting Nate as a FA- only newbies) $6^M in 2020 (Perez) $32M in '21 and '22 (10M Richards, $7M Wacha, $5M Perez, Hill and Paxton) $32M ($19.25M Gio, $10M Kluber, $5M Paxton, $1.25 Chase Anderson, $1M Criswell) $47.4M for 2025 alone ($20.05 Buehler, $18.25 Gio, $9.1M Sandoval) If you combine 2024 and 2025, you see a big jump, higher AAV per pitcher signed, but basically the same types of signings: 20.05 Buehler $38.5M/2 Golito 18.25M/2 Sandoval That's a lot of AAV money, that if spent on 1 or 2 longer term contracts would give us more projected stability, but we don't do that, anymore. $76.8M spend on 3 pitchers and maybe 4 years of control (if you count Sandoval as 1 year) That comes to $38M a year or about $26M per pitcher and year. We better hope we strike gold with Buehler or Sandoval, because we've lost the Lottery, every year. (The Wacha-Hill-Paxton year was a push, but Paxton's value was in the following season.)

Arenado at under $10M on this scenario, makes some sense, and for JH, that's 1/3 the cost of Bregman and 1/2 the years.