moonslav59

Nick Martinez is significantly better than Crawford, Gio and Bello. He's been very good longer than Houck. His recent 3 year sample size is nothing to complain about: 3.31 ERA (126 ERA+) and 1.176 WHIP in 360 IP. (He was a RP'er for some of this, so that helps his numbers.) Only 74 pitchers have 350+ IP since 2022, and here is where NM ranks: 49th in fWAR at 5.3 (just o.1 from Jon Gray, Pivetta and Detmers and ahead of Morton, Kikuchi, Bello and Crawford.) 35th in xFIP- at 95, just below M Keller and Bello 17th in ERA (just behind Wacha, Lugo and Sonny Gray and just ahead of L Castillo, Gilbert, Cease and Kirby.) T15th in ERA- at 80 w Lugo (1 behind Webb, S Gray and Wacha) This guy would help our rotation and pen, since someone would be pushed to the long man role- something we need, badly, too.

Well, most teams hit the spending wall. While the Yanks don't have losing seasons, and that's a really nice thing, they have not won a ring in a very long time. With how much the Dodgers have spent, much of it deferred, you'd think they'd have more rings and WS appearances than they have had. They have missed the NLCS, the last 2 years, while outspending just about everyone but the Mets. The Dodgers won the WS in 2020, a short season. From 2021 to 2023, according to Steve the Ump, these are the top spending teams in 3 years combined (I added in my head and may have made mistakes on numbers): $890M Mets: missed playoffs, twice and lost 1st round in '22 $803M Yanks: made playoffs 2 of 3 years, lost 1st rd once, lost ALCS once $736M Dodgers (with some fancy deferrals) made playoffs all 3 & won 1 round. $727M Phillies: made playoffs 2 of 3, lost WS & NLCS, once each. $617M Padres: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost NLCS This range has more rings than the upper two ranges 2-0 $550M Red Sox: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost ALCS $514 Astros: made playoffs all 3 years, WON WS, lost WS and lost ALCS $510M Blue Jays: LOL $506M Braves: made all 3 years, WON WS, lost first round, twice. Texas has the other ring and are far down the list. I'm not presenting this to say spending does not matter. It clearly does. The top 4 spending teams made the playoffs in 8 of 12 chances. That is fact. No rings, however, does show that spending is not the be-all-end-all. I know nobody is saying that, but nobody is saying spending makes no difference at all, either.

O'Neill was an excellent alternative to Teoscar. He cost less than $6M and a couple meh RP'ers. If you count shedding Dugo's deal, we spent the same on O'Neill, Weissert and Fitts as Dugo cost. You were right, Teoscar did well, but it's not like the choice we took was worse.

Max is on a mission to show that spending huge on a just a few players is a bad strategy that ends up back-firing or hurting the team, after the prime years are gone. He likes be hyperbolic and often uses superlatives to show how strongly he feels about his position. If you read most of what he posts, he has often said spending makes a difference, if it's spent wisely. I think taking this one statement and acting like Max thinks spending makes "zero" difference is going overboard. There certainly is no group of posters who think spending makes no difference, at all. Bringing up examples of low spenders who win or consistently win is just showing that spending isn't everything, and it isn't everything. It's a big factor, IMO. It's not such a big factor or an even bigger factor in others' opinions.

"Ain't much" is not saying absolutely no correlation, and that was the question I asked. Also, Max has said other things that reveal that "intelligent spending" can make a difference. He likes to speak in superlatives. I will add that things have changed since the Yanks ruled MLB with more money. I certainly think spending more gives teams a better chance, even if they swing and miss, wildy some or even most times. There are also some teams that spend little, but spend wisely, scout better and manage/develop players better than richer teams. Bringing up those examples is fair. It's not claiming that spending doesn't make a difference, but it does make the point that spending is not and never has been "everything." In recent years, we have seen various teams, like the Dodgers, Mets and Padres go nutty with spending, if just for a 1-2 year period. This is obvious proof that spending wildly more than others does not mean you win a ring. There is gray area in this debate, but yes, spending makes a difference. Look at last year's hug gaps in sending: $334M Mets $269M Yanks $237M Padres The #10-12 teams were at $180M (over $150M from the Mets.) In 2022, the Dodgers spent $109M more than #10. The Mets spent $85M more. In 2021, the Dodgers spent $85M more than #10/ the Yanks $52M more. Why does bringing this up bother you so much? It's not claiming spending doesn't matter. It's just showing it's not everything- not that this is what you are saying this. I think when one of us points this out, you think we are claiming spending makes no difference, when we are not. Spending is what got the Sox 4 rings. It started with Manny, before JH even arrived. It took the brains to realise we could not win by just spending on bats to get us to glory. We spent and traded for pitching. It took brains and money to get us 4 rings.

My new top 12: 1. Texas (took care of business w Oklahoma.) 2. Oregon (I do not think they are this good.) 3. Penn St. (almost lost at USC) 4. Miami (still no losses) 5. Georgia (first on less team in my rankings) 6. Ohio St. (lost at Oregon) 7. Tennessee (barely beat a bad FLA team in OT) 8. Clemson (easy schedule) 9. Alabama (almost got upset, again) 10. Iowa St (still no losses) 11. LSU (Beat #9 Ole Miss, yesterday) 12. Notre Dame (got it done) 13. Ole Miss (BYU & IN are still undefeated)

Is anybody saying there is absolutely no correlation between spending more and winning? The debate is about to what degree it is, right?

Only examples that support claims can be used.

Penn St almost lost at USC. The domers won big vs Stanford. Alabama almost lost and #16 Utah lost. It looks like a wide open year. A few big games still going on. I doubt ND moves up, this week, unless #9 Ole Miss loses to LSU, but then LSU may jump over us. #2 Ohio St is playing #3 Oregon, but the loser will not be passed by ND. Maybe Florida upsets TN.

I'd say the odds were against the Mets, and the Yanks did not play all that well, second half, so their odds were not great, either. Yes, big spending helps your odds.

I think many agree with this. The Sale extension is but one example, although I thought it was okay, at the time. Nobody says DD did a perfect job up to 2018. Many felt it was overkill or "emptying the farm" to go the extra mile. As it turned out, hardly any prospects he traded did all that well, and just about every big trade worked. When you assemble a team of stars and your young players start to near and reach free agency, the piper comes calling. Sure, he shoulda not extended Sale or signed Nate and assured Betts stayed in BOS forever, but wouldn't paying one guy 1/5th of the budget be against your motto, too?

No. You changed the subject. You said everyone said you were wrong with the facts about some low spending teams winning. I said nothing about payrolls going in the wrong direction. I mentioned several teams going nutty and passing us.

I really like Fried, a lot. He is 31. It does worry me, that he's only gone over 175 IP, once. Over 166, twice. Martinez might come at half the price.

The ones most pissed at us losing, refuse to think ideas to get better have any merit.

To save $90M, which they could spend wisely and build around Mayer. They are going nowhere, fast.

It's hard to know how DD would have fared with the same budgets Bloom was handed. The budget demands were the bigger aspect than firing DD, IMO.

How about this one: To SFG: Yoshida $18M x 3 Mayer (5 years of control) Maybe add DHam or if we have to... Abreu (5 years of control) BOS takes on a net $90M in contracts ($49M '25, $48M in '26, $23M '27, $24M '28) Tax hit: $52M-$18M= $34M in '25, $41M-$18M= $23M in '26 , Even in '27, and $18M in '28 with Webb and no Yoshida. To BOS: Logan Webb $12M in '25, $23M in '26 & '27 and $24M in '28 ($18M tax hit per year) Robbie Ray $25M x 2 ($23M tax hit per 2 years) Taylor Rogers (LH RP) $12M x 1 ($11M tax hit for one year) SFG saves $144M minus $54M for Yoshida= $90M total.

The park helps the numbers, too, but some of these guys are pretty good on the road, too. To me, our best bet at getting a SEA pitcher is Castillo, due to his contract and age. His contract was also back-end loaded, to some extent. His AAV is $21.6 x 3 more years, but his pay is $24.2M x 3. There is also a team option, if there is an injury: 28:$25M vesting option and 2028 conditional option: Seattle receives a $5M club option for 2028 if Castillo is on the Injured List in 2025-27 for more than 130 consecutive days due to Tommy John surgery or an operation stemming from damage to the ligament

Max, nobody said you were wrong about lower spending teams making the playoffs. Several posters have also pointed out that a team does not have to spend a lot to do well. You are not the "only one." Many posters saw the writing on the wall for the Sox after 2018. There was a fierce debate over the "C" word. Some of us still grateful for what DD did those 3 years, despite the price we paid, afterwards. It's not always as black and white as you make it out to be. DD did what he was told to do. He was good at it. He even did better at building the farm than many thought he did, at the time. He traded a bunch of top prospects that amounted to squat and kept the few good ones, including Devers. He spent what he was allowed to spend and rarely missed on bid signings and trades. Dislike him all you want. Drive that bandwagon into the sunset.

Red was not against the trade, itself. It was the paying too much money part. Had we not paid a penny, he'd have liked the deal and still found some other way to twist it into him being right. There was logic in keeping every pitcher with promise we could. There was logic in cutting our losses and trying to fix a second base problem we had for 5-6 years. We swung and missed, wildly, and then swung and missed on Gio to make matters worse.

Winning makes it hard keep a farm strong. The Astros farm did a job no Sox farm has done since the days of Clemens, Hurst, Ojeda and others: produce quality SP'er, and more than 5, at the same time at some points, in recent years. F Valdez Keuchel McCullers Jr H Brown Javier L Garcia, Urquidy, McHugh, Arrighetti & Blanco Plus, they helped breathe some life into Cole, Morton, Verlander and others. They also had a farm that was able to refill the losses of Springer & Correa. I hope our farm can set us up for an 8 year window.

Dare I say, the Phillies are headed for a cliff.

Wong was the worst defensive catchers in MLB, last year, according to many metrics. Certainly, that is an area of need. Teel is supposed to be good on defense, so I'm thinking a 1 year deal for a " bridge" makes more sense. Wong could make a nice back-up catcher, PH'er and emergency 2B/1B sub. He's also a RHB, while Teel bats lefty and has yet to prove he a plus on offense. I know there is a lot of "ifs," but we can make great strides on infield defense with just a somewhat minimal addition of a 1 year catcher: C: D'arnaud or Jansen & Wong 1B: Casas & Devers, when not DH'ing 2B: Campbell, Mayer, DHam-Grissom SS: Story & Mayer (Romy) 3B: Mayer/Campbell or Grissom (Meidroth) This defense is light year's better than 2024"s C: Wong and McGuire/Jansen 1B: Smith & Casas (Dalbec, Romy, Cooper & Wong 60-95 innings, each) 2B: E Valdez had the most innings (YUK!) DHam & Grissom (245+) and Romy, Westbrook & Sogard 100+. (Gasper, Reyes and Rafaela 30+) SS: Rafaela 647, DHam 433 (Double YUK!) Story 228, Romy 80, Sogard 51 3B: Devers 1138 was more innings at one position than anyone else, except Abreu in RF, and he sucked. (55+ from Romy, Reyes, Dalbec & Sogard) LF: 611 Duran, 498 O'Neill & 297 Ref (room to improve, here) CF: 810 Duran, 631 Rafaela (Can't get much better.) RF: 1421 Abreu (a plus) 301 O'Neill & 198 Ref (could get better with Anthony instead.) So, improve D at C, SS, 3B, 2B, LF, RF and maybe a little at 1B, 2B and CF. The same or better at every position with just one addition and a couple position shifts: Devers to 1B/DH/ Casas to 1/2 DH and Rafaela out of the infield.

To play deveil's advocate... As much as I see a very strong need for pitching, we did finish 11th or 12th in pitching fWAR and ERA-. We have some young pitchers and banked on Hendriks and Fulmer as 2024 signings meant for 2025. With Gio and Whitlock returning, and a full season of Slaten, one could say we are okay, despite losing Pivetta, Jansen and Martin. Pitchers like I Campbell and others were thought to be better. One could easily get high on Fitts and maybe Priester, Dobbins, Guerrero, Penrod and others. I'm not buying this, but some numbers show our pitching is okay.

No problem. I'm not sure green is an option. I know we both think pitching is terribly important.