moonslav59

It's not "Rays-like," if we don't trade him for prospects. Any Duran trade would be for a top 20-30 SP'er, and we'd fill Duran's slot with Anthony, Campbell of Ref vs LHPs. We'd also, in theory, not spend much money getting this top SP'er and would have more budget space to add Tanner Scott and a top LH'd RP and maybe a better catcher than we normally could afford. The whole picture MIGHT make it worthy, but that takes a lot of "ifs," and with JH, I'm done "iffing" on spending on anything of real value.

He may be SEA's 3 or 4 starter, but he'd be our #2. SEA is not looking to trade salary, but they wheel and deal enough to see that by losing some salary with Castillo, they could add someone else to fill another gap. Maybe even sign a Nick Martinez for under what Castillo makes, now.

Skenes is with PIT and is pre-arb. He'd take more than Duran to get, but I used him as an example of someone I would trade Duran for. Nobody is untouchable, if the return is better and fills a higher need area. Shubal is with Tigers but has just 2 years of control. 4 years of Duran for 2 of Skubla makes we worry, too much. If he agreed to an extension, I'd do it, yesterday.

If it's Martinez and a couple decent pen arms, I'll be far fro won over, too. We need at a BARE MINIMUM 1 top SP'ers and 2 very solid RP'ers (one that might close and one a lefty set-up man.) I'd like 4 pitchers and a good back-up catcher, but would be okay with 3 major additions.

Good to see you back. We missed you!

The high salary would mean we would not get a mega return.

Anybody on my list worth Duran? I'd say the 1-2 years pitchers: no. I'd say the 2-3 year pitchers with big contracts: no. When you look at 3-4 year pitchers at low or arb costs, I'm listening. The 4-5 year pre-arb>arb pitchers in the top groups, I'd be leaning to a yes: Skenes would be a yes. I haven't looked at others w 4-5 low cost years left.

Just so you know, I'm not for trading Duran, but I'll trade anyone for a better return. Duran is not the best player in MLB. His 4 years of control do make him more valuable than a few players who might be better than him but have less control years or a huge contract. Would you trade 4 years of Duran for 5 years of Skenes? Just wondering.

How many aces are in MLB? Tell me when to stop, or where you draw the line. (Note: many "aces" have just 1-2, maybe 3 years of control, so 4 years of Duran will not get 1-2 years of an ace?) I'm going mostly by 2023-2024 best numbers... Skubal, Skenes, Wheeler, Webb, Sonny Gray, Sale Kirby, Cease, Gallen, F Valdez, Gausman, Steele Burnes, Cole, Snell, Bibee, Castillo, Strider Maybe 18 is the cut-off? Then... (#19 to 50) Ragans, Lugo, Pablo Lopez, Gilbert, Eflin, Nola, Glasnow, M Keller, Fried H Greene, C Sanchez, Kikuchi, Wacha, Suarez, Ryan, Ober, Houck, Nate, Peralta Crochet, Lopez, M King, Flaherty, Monty, Mikolas, B Miller,N Martinez, Singer, Berrios, Bassitt, Fedde, Luzardo

If the late games stay as is, here are the conference records: NFC: Minn 5-0, DET 4-1, GB, CHI, TB, WSH 4-2 (No NFC West team above .500) AFC: KC 5-0, Tex 5-1, BAL & PIT 4-2, BUF & LAC 3-2 (BUF plays Monday night.) Big surprises: 4-2 WSH NFC North all 4-2 or better.

I don't see it that way, but one really good SP'er and the rest spent on 3 quality pen arms is fine with me. People talk about Crawford's IP, but I'd prefer him as our long man. Too many HRs allowed. Maybe he was lucky so many were solo blasts- maybe not. I'd prefer not to find out. He had an ERA+ of 98. That's really not bad for a 5th starter, but I have Gio pegged for that slot, with an 81 and 90 ERA+, his last 2 full seasons. Besides, we know someone will get hurt, and if not, one of the 4 we got will likely take a step back. An ace pick-up would be awesome. We need to plan for something going wrong, instead of acting shocked, when it does. I think we have every position covered 2-3 deep, except catcher, so we add a decent 1 year catcher to go with Wong, and then improve our rotation and depth and pen. I like Fitts, Criswell, Priester and maybe Dobbins as rotation depth, but I'd prefer they were the 7-10 guys, not the 6. We do need a lot of pen help, and if the budget is limited, I can see going with 1 SP. Your point is valid. I think we can afford to trade Abreu and DHam for a couple nice pen guys, so I'm thinking sign one top RP'er like Tanner Scott and either sign a good SP'er or two, or trade a top prospect for one, and then sign someone like Nick Martinez, Kikuchi or Flaherty- and not a tier one FA SP'er.

I'd like to agree, but with better teams losing to worse teams, every week, I'm not sure it happens.

The 4 years of control is the kicker. Duran has proven himself. 4 arbs. There are some players better than Duran, but how many have 4 years of control at arb prices. He is among the top trade chips in MLB. I'm not sure what BTV gives him for a value, but it must be as high as several pitchers I call aces. To me, it would be all about the years of control of the pitcher we get, and the contract situation. Duran is not someone I want to trade, now is Anthony. I'd prefer we trade someone like Casas or Mayer, but they will not bring back what Duran or Anthony will do.

I'd rather we trade for a much better pitcher and use the money on the pen and maybe a second tier pitcher like N.M.

Welcome aboard. I'd love the deal, but I am certain AZ would not like the deal, even if Yoshida had just one year remaining on his contract. Maybe, if we paid Yoshida's deal down to the same as what Monty is owed, they might not hang up on us. I like the concept of the idea nd effort.

Valid point. I think we all know spending more usually increases your odds of winning. I think even Max would agree. There are other correlations to winning, as well- like great management. A strong farm 1-3 years before a window and maybe 1-2 into the window, if you want a long window is also very helpful. Are these more or less important than spending? Does it matter? Is having great management AND a strong farm for a 3-4 year period more important than spending a lot? The Astros would say "YES!" The Astros ranked 18th in spending in 2017. They did jump up to 11th in 2018 and 8th in 2019. They reached 4th in 2020, so one could argue they did spend big, but they had already won, before getting to top 8. They started dropping in the rankings before the Sox and were 7th in 2021 (Sox were 3rd.) In '22 they dropped to 11th (Sox 6th.) They were barely ahead of the Sox in spending in 2023. They let a lot of top talent players go: Verlander, Springer, Correa, Cole, Morton and more, yet they kept winning with great management, some huge farm infusions (and okay, some cheating, too.) This year, they jumped to top 4 again, and lost the first round of the playoffs. Spending matters, but there are never any guarantees in baseball.

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.