moonslav59

I could see that as part of the dynamic. I think he must also feel satisfied with just bringing one ring to an area that went over 80 seasons without one. The second, third and fourth were gravy, in some ways. He may feel like he's done enough and may never spend a ton, again. I guess we will find that out/

He won't be remembered like that by everybody, and IMO, not even half of Sox fans, after the recent anger wears off. Maybe younger fans, who didn't live through a decades long drought or don't appreciate how much it took to build the 2018 juggernaut might hold the animosity you have beyond his time as the Sox owner, but that's not how I will remember him. I won't forget this part of his time, here, but I won't forget 2003 to 2018 time period, either. I think most will view JH with some degree of mixed feelings. How he does from 2025 and beyond might make a difference, too. I remember fan being pissed at seeing some 2004 stars depart, then we shut up in 2007. Fans were irate after 2012, but then, ooops! The 2014 and 2015 seasons started bringing back unrest, before the 3 straight divisional championships happened under DD. 2018 was a perfect season, in many ways, and it seemed like the core was young enough to extend the window for at least 2-3 more years, but the dismantling began, almost immediately, when we let K & K walk after 2018. The last few years have sucked, bigtime. 2021 is barely a memory, anymore. I share the anger. It did not have to be like this. Letting Betts walk really sucked, but it went far beyond that, too. That being said, I think we are nearing another "window." Let's see how JH handles, this one.

Good stuff! I think Duran deserves it. Houck did very well, but wasn't all that unexpected. I think DHam's year was most unexpected, but he didn't play all that much, and most of the shock was more about just how bad we all thought he was to start with. Duran had some very nice numbers, last year before the IL stint/

I just watch the highlights, which is the best "eye test," according to the guys down at the gym.

I strongly disagree. JH spent more than other teams, many times. No other Sox owner comes close. I know Red, and maybe a few others, think JH was not significantly responsible for our 4 rings in 2 decades, but I do. I waited over 30 years to see the glory. I was thinking I never would. The guy may be a big __ fill in the blank___, but for over 15 years he gave what was needed to get it done. This does not put him above criticism, but it does add some context, I think is needed.

I have to agree, with Schilling as a close second. (early Beckett was awesome, too.)

Fixing the defense is a loaded term. It could involve hurting the offense by making changes to help the defense. It can mean moving current players around without changing the offense. It can mean adding external player and replacing who we have, with or without hurting the offense. I just don't see us adding a player from another team, to help the defense without hurting the offense. What position? Catcher seems like our weakest defensive position, but Wong was one of the best offensive catchers in MLB, this year, and we have who looks like an all-around player in Teel, just about ML ready. So, maybe a one year fix at catcher, who may or may not be a step down from Wong. (We also have to look at how badly McGuire did and Jansen not all that good on O.) The return of Story has to be viewed as the centerpiece to defensive improvement. We aren't adding another SS, like Adames. Maybe Mayer plays, some, and he is not supposed to be bad on defense, so our SS position should improve. Keeping DHam at 2B only helps, too, especially since Grissom is a question mark on D, at best, and sucks at worst. Mayer or campbell can't be any worse than E Valdez, our leader in 2B innings, this year. Moving Rafaela to FT OF or 4th OF'er status should help the OF defense, which was already very good. Less innings from O'Neill and Ref, and more from rafaela and Anthony looks like an improvement. That leaves corner IF, which was the worst in MLB, last year, combined and maybe close to one-by-one. We've beaten the idea of moving Devers to 1B or 1B/DH combo with Casas, but it's hard to imagine that happening, this winter. Keeping Devers and Casas healthy might be a bi-product of that choice, and I'm not so sure it would hurt the offense by DH'ing Casas and or Devers, and batting Campbell or Mayer over Yoshida. There has been the suggestion of playing Grissom at 3B (not 2B) and using Campbell at 2B, but I'm not sure than improves the offense as much as having Story, Campbell and Mayer play middle IF and 3B. (DHam could platoon at 2B, if a righty bat struggles vs RHPs.) I kinda like this defense: C: ___ (one year FA or trade___ & Wong (Teel in July?) 1B: Devers (Casas, when Devers "rests" at DH) 2B: Campbell or Mayer (Grissom-DHam platoon) SS: Story (Mayer) 3B: Mayer or Campbell (Grissom vs LHPs with Campbell at 2B?) LF: Duran CF: Anthony/ Rafaela (*Rafaela and Abreu platoon) RF: Abreu*/Anthony DH: Casas/Devers combo (Refsnyder-Abreu platoon) The offense is no worse than it looks, now.

I agree. There are just a tiny few players, you just have to draw a line and keep. I also don't think Betts was being totally unreasonable with his demands, but he did seem to say he wanted to test the market, so I can understand an owner thinking how absurd might this get? Look at what Ohtani and Yamamoto got. Look what Bogey got. I'm not defending JH. He needed to just simply make it happen (like he did with Devers, after semi-learning a lesson.) The whole COVID thing and what he ended up signing for make it look like it was easier to keep Betts than maybe it looked in 2019 to early 2020. Again, no excuse: JH blundered, badly. He may never live it down.

To be honest, I didn't even notice that was what we were arguing about. Maybe I misunderstood. I'm not 100% sure Bloom was handed a set budget and told, you work it out as you think best, but either way, I'm not sure it matters, to me. What matter to me s that JH made serious cuts to the budget. We may never know, if it was in the form of one-by-one "NO's" to each big contract presented, or just a general set budget with more say by the GM on who gets signed. I thought I was very clear, and I think my first response on this said, "Of course JH could afford anybody." That statement certainly makes it clear we "could have" matched the Dodgers, so Max was wrong, in that sense, yes. There is a chance JH told Bloom, "Don't offer any more than we already did to Betts." To me, that changes nothing. We still could have but chose not to. The only difference is bringing Bloom's choices into the blame game, or not. I thought this talk was about JH and penny-pinching.

Assuming JH okayed other gutting over the Betts trade, yes.

What's the argument? We all know why we didn't sign Betts. JH could have. Bloom could not. I've admitted this over and over. JH would not pay, therefore we could not match LAD. Is this a false statement?

Indeed, and I am all for flipping 1 or 2 to get us over the hump, especially if JH won't up the budget enough to get us there.

We could not match LA, because JH set the budget too low. I'm still not getting how what I am saying is muddying anything. We all know he didn't sign because Jh would not pay him. Why does it matter so much how we word it? I guess we can take issue with the word choice "could," because we all know JH "could have" paid the money, but from Bloom's perspective we "could not," unless he gutted the rest of the team. As it turned out, we lost Betts and gutted the rest of the team, so I doubt that was even a choice, in hindsight.

Many, many, many fond memories. He was truly a great pitcher, who had to reinvent himself after the injury. That WS loss to Cincy was tough to take, as a kid, but he gave us something to be proud of, and his base-running, something to laugh about.

I think it took longer to build up the farm that many felt it would, and we still have a hole in the pitching side of the farm. Bello, Crawford, Houck and others are better than we've seen in a while, but still not enough. With a few decent to good pitchers now on the 26, and a solid 13 everyday players with depth, I think we can say we have reached a "sustainable" level, but only if we add a few key pieces, namely pitchers, and here is where JH and Brez need to step in.

Yes, agreed, and until recently, I always felt like JH's spending was cyclical and matched up with certain "windows" of opportunity to win a ring. I kept thinking, "this could be the winter," but that got tiring. At this point, I'm not sure JH ever spends like he did, before. I'm not counting on it. I'm not expecting it. However, I've not given up hope, either. "I'll believe it when I see it," is my current mantra. I'm very optimistic about our future, and maybe we can with without major financial outlays- maybe not. Many of us realized, even before 2018, that the spending was enormous, and so many of our younger players were all approaching free agency, around the same 1-3 year period. We wondered how we could sustain a great team, without massive budget increases, and what appeared to be a very low ranked farm system. We called a word, some hate to hear, so I won't say "cliff." (LOL) I doubt anyone saw it ever getting this bad and letting so many of our stars walk. Some had faith we could rebuild the farm, quickly and get right back into the swing of it, without missing a beat, but that also presupposed JH would spend "enough" to bridge to this new farm system. As it turned out, the farm took many years to get where it is now, and we still lack many farm pitchers that are great or even real good. With little farm infusion between Devers and Houck/Duran/Bello, I think JH saw the window was going to be closed for a longer period than we've seen under him. Hopefully, he see the window as being open, now and changes his way, but I'm not believing in that, until I see some actions. (emphasis on the plural "s.")

I know. Are we arguing over what JH's motivations were and are? I'm not seeing any difference between saying we could not match LAD and JH was slashing the budget.

I said Sale and Nate, and how much did we underbid the Dodgers by? (about $64M, right?) Certainly, if Bloom was looking of other ways to cut the budget and keep Betts, it would have been easier without Sale and Nat's contracts on the books. Bloom had a tough budget to work with. The Price aspect of the trade is often neglected, and the loss of Porcello's innings eating and $21M contract with a Martin Perez replacement is another huge cut.

I thought the same thing, but he foillowed it up with... "I really believe we have the ingredients to take a run at this thing next year.” To me, the meaning was clear: it's about this winter, but I'm taking it as a lie, until I see otherwise, in terms of actions taken.

Our GMs had no choice. I have clearly stated JH could afford anyone, if he wanted. This isn't about JH's motives. To me, making money is clearly his motive. Yes, the reason we could not compete with the Dodgers, and why we slashed the budget was all about JH's choice to put money over winning. I'm not sure anything I have said counters that or muddies anything. I've never come close to even hinting what they did was "right." It is what JH chose it to be. The GMs might have had some say in how to make the cuts and who stays vs who goes, but it was always about JH & Co. making more money- or "saving it."

I have zero faith in anything the Sox say, and that goes retroactively. It's just my opinion, but I think Bloom was handed a budget that required massive cuts and not replacing Porcello's contract was just a part of it. The only indecision might have been as he sought different ways to reach the budget by keeping Betts, so maybe he didn't outright lie, or by trading him. They probably had no takers for full-price Price, and he soon realized Betts had to go. Maybe he waited to February to maximize season ticket sales, or to wait out any other teams that might offer more than what LAD offered. Reports were that just one other offer was made to Bloom. We ended up cutting $60M from the 2019 budget that was already without our 2 top RP'ers. The writing was on the wall before 2019. I don't think anyone expected slashes like we saw, but I don't think JH ever intended to pay everyone and keep that 2018 team intact. Even if he did, Porcello sucked and never pitched after 2019, Beni declined, quickly, Nate, Sale and ERod missed a lot of starts. Price did next to nothing. It has also been argued that if we never extended Sale and nate, maybe Betts would still be here.

Isn't slashing the budget evidence we "can't compete with the Dodgers" or just saying the same thing in a different way? We traded Betts over finances. We can word it anyway we want. Could we have afforded to pay Betts what LAD did and still met the budget demands? Probably, but we'd have gutted the rest of the team, as we ended up pretty much doing, anyway. Betts wasn't even the beginning of the slashing. While maz keeps pointing out that the 2019 budget was bigger than 2018, that was largely about risings costs of stars that were nearing their big payday and bringing back some guys like Pearce. The fact is, we let Kimbrel and Kelly go without even trying to replace them. Then, it was Betts, 1/2 price and Porcello plus others. The next year it was Beni, JBJ, Workman and others. Eventually, it was nate, JD, Bogey and more. Yes, cutting the budget by huge amounts meant we could not compete with the Dodgers on signing Betts and others on signing other departing stars. I'm seeing clear waters, not muddy ones.

I don't see a search bar or anything that says "Boards."

I was talking to the point about the "indecisiveness" of the choice made comment, namely because we waited until February. While I do think Bloom was kicking around various scenarios of trades, I think the "why" is as clear as day: to meet the budget set by JH. I think Max was right: he knew we could not afford Betts, or if we did try to do it, we'd have had to gut much of the supporting cast as we ended up doing, even with trading Betts w half-Price. We also lost Porcello's contract and a few small to moderate ones, too- replacing all these guys with Martin Perez and scrubs. It was a total tear down that was made even worse by ERod missing 2020 and Sale missing almost all of 2020-2022 or 2023. Remember, we never replace Kimbrel & Kelly, the winter before,. That was just the beginning, as we followed up by letting Beni, JD, ERod, Nate, Bogey and others go, in subsequent years. If that is not proof of the "why," what is? It was obviously about the money. What is the alternative theory? Some quotes about there being not set budget or that Betts was going to return? Like, all of a sudden, we are taking their word as truth? If anything, their word should show the opposite, as we've learned since the trade.

Would the Sox and Rays agree to this trade? 5 years of Abreu + Wikelman or Murphy for Pete Fairbanks RHP ($3.7M in '25 w $7M option for '26 w $1M buyout.) Colin Poche LHP (3rd arb '25)