moonslav59

It's not like McGuire was doing great things, last year. Losing Jansen hurt. I think Narvaez may be okay, and he's good on D, but I'd feel better with someone else- not for back-up, but as a starter. On the everyday player side of the coin, the big losses were O'Neill and a couple months of Jansen. Our gains have to come from Narvaez and 2024 injured players (Story, Casas and a few other shorter stints) to make up for those losses, at least until we decide to call up the kids. The rotation made great gains. We replaced Pivetta with Crochet, Buehler, Giolito and Sandoval. Guys like Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins and Fulmer look better than our depth did, last January. The pen has some promise, but losing Jansen & Martin makes it a huge question mark. We added Chapman & Wilson, and may add more to come, but we also will see Hendriks & Whitlock and maybe our 6th starter and or Criswell & other AAA starters helping in the pen. To me, the pen looks deeper than last winter but lacking at the closer slot. The defense can improve with a near full season from Story, but that is sounding like a broken record. C, 3B and 1B remain awful. The OF should be better with Rafaela replacing O'Neills innings on OF D.

No Penn St completions to a WR. Notre Dame wins 27-24 after a late game INT and a 41 yard FG with 7 seconds left. WOW!

Tied up: 24-24 on 54 yard TD pass.

Orange Bowl nailbiter: Penn St 24- Notre Dame 17 with under 8 minutes to go. ND ball.

Carlos Narvaez is doing well in the Venezuela League playoffs. His team won the first 6 games, and he got on base 8 out of 17 times. (5 walks)

Only 15 of the 40 Man Roster players are non pitchers. One is in AA (Jh Garica) and one is Sogard. We do have the big three prospects ready to jump on the 40, when we are ready for them on the 26, but that is pretty amazing having 25 of the 40 as pitchers. On top of that, we have a pretty decent list of ML ready pitchers after those 25: Fulmer, I Campbell, Mata, Mills, A Adams, N Davis, J Adames, H Harris Well, we did use 34 players as pitchers in 2024, 3 were non pitchers in a clean-up role. 10 were added to the organization after opening day: Keller, Horn, Garcia, Sims, Paxton, Priester, Hill, Wingenter, Jacquez and Y Ramirez, so basically, we used 21 pitchers that started the year in the Sox organization. We might not have to go outside the organization, so much, this year.

Let's say we hold off trying to trade Yoshida and Abreu and make one RP'er signing like Carlos Estevez. (Maybe, we DFA Sogard or Shugart or make some minor trade to clear a spot.) How competitive is this team? SP: Crochet, Houck, Bello, Buehler, Giolito, Crawford (Sandoval 60 IL) (AAA: Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins- NR Fulmer) RP: Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten, Estevez, Whitlock, Winckowski, Wislon, Guerrero (AAA: Guerrero, Kelly, Bernardino, Penrod, Shugart- NR Campbell, Mata) C: Wong, Narvaez- NR Zavala 1B: Casas- NR Hickey 2B: DHam, Grissom- NR Campbell SS: Story, Romy- NR Mayer 3B: Devers- NR Eaton LF: Duran, Refsnyder CF: Rafaela- NR Anthony RF: Abreu- Sogard - NR Sikes DH: Yoshida

The exchanged numbers and might go to the arb. Still time before the hearings begin Jan 27th.

I don't disagree, but great defense makes pitching easier. A great pen makes mediocre starters enough to give a team a shot. Of course great batting helps. This all started with you saying "fine is not enough" for batting. I think it is, if the other areas make up for it. Right now, ours does not. Our weakest area is not batting. It's not the rotation or depth. It's the pen and defense. I was pulling for a Soto signing, like all of us, even if it meant not upgrading a SP'er. His impact would have been immense.

I'm not comfortable with mediocre, and I said top 8-10, which is better than mediocre and exactly the ranking the Nats had in 2019. We don't have a Soto or Rendon. We might have a couple Turners and better balance, but not a lot of elite batters. I'd love to see us add one, and certainly think it would improve our chances. I'm not predicting a top 3 rotation, but I do think it is possible. I have serious doubts our pen can stay 11-20th. I have serious doubts our defense can finish top 20. I have more confidence in our batting finishing top 10 than the pen and defense finishing top 20. It's rally hard to win with a 20th ranked pen and D, just as it is with less than 2-3 elite hitters.

They did have two mashers and a very good 3rd hitter, but they placed 9th. I guess 9th can be "fine" if it's top heavy, only.

So, 9th is "fine," then, right?

Did the Royals have "crazy" anything? The 2014 Giants were tied for 11th in wRC+. They were 26th in pitching fWAR and 19th in ERA-

You moved the goal posts from a general just "fine hitting" to having no "elite bats."

Okay, we are talking about two different things. I just threw out those numbers to set an example of what could go down. Can you answer the Q about what you do if he insists on an opt out after 2027? (of course, the money matters, too.) let's say his opt out is after $8M in '25, $18M in '26 and 22M in '27? That's the same as him getting $20M/2 in arbs and $28M in 2027. You walk away and just take 2 years?

At this point, I'd only take Arenado, if they took Yoshida plus $6M x 3 yrs. We don't need 2 Yoshida's, but at least Arenado can play defense.

Just go to the next full season: 2019 The Nats were 9th in wRC+ and 6th in OPS They were 5th in fWAR pitching but 13th in ERA- 5th in OAA and 12th in DRS

My suggestion is based on him rejecting any contract without an opt out. Why is that so hard to fathom. He may very well do just that. We could offer him more than Fried, including the arb buy-out years, and he could say no. If he insists on an early opt-out, you guys just walk away? Geesh, I though Bloom was bad.

I want to extend him for 6-8 years with no opt opts. He will likely want near $30M for the non arb years part of the deal. If he says no and will not sign any extension without an opt out, why would I say No, just walk after 2. We don't want a third year. I'm not sure why this is complicated. He's getting $3.8M this year on the agreement pre-arb and might get $14-20M, next year. Let's say he's make $20M total for 2025-2026, and then gets $30M x 6 for the next years of a deal. $180M/6. If the extension started this year, the toal 8 years would be $200M/8 guaranteed. If he says no, the only deal I'll take is $4M, $16M and $30M from 2027-2032, but with an opt out after 2027- take it or leave it. I'd take it and get 3 years NOT 2. You would say no? Bye-bye after 2 years, and get a comp pick, maybe. One way to try to convince him to take a longer deal or put off the opt out until year 5 or 6, is to front end load it. Give him the cash, now. $10M 2025 $20M 2026 $25M 2027 ($55M/3 vs $50M/3 on my first offer) $25M 2028 ($80M/4 vs $80M/4) $30M 2029, then opt out. Some take this to get paid more, upfront. It's the opposite of deferring money, which devalues a contract. He will likely say no. So, my question is, you will refuse any opt-out contract after 2027, even if it means no extension will ever be made?

We were top 4 in scoring in many non ring years. It's when we do well in pitching that tips the scales. ERA- by season in MLB since 2004 rankings 4th in 2004 1st in 2007 6th in 2013 2nd in 2018

I disagree. I'd love top 3, but we can win it all by being top 8-10 in batting, middle 10 on defense and top 3 in SP and maybe top 10 in the pen (yeah right) and we may have a good chance.

True, and it still means he struggled vs LHPs in 2023, despite close splits, that year. I'm concerned, but it's not like he's struggled every year. Some players just have off year splits. He was hurt, a lot, too, and the sample sizes were not big.

Of course we want more, but if Crochet says take it or leave it, I try to get at least one more year. It was like the Bogey deal: we all hated the opt out after 3 years, but it gave us one more year, and we only paid him $20M x 3. It was better than him walking after 2 years.

You gotta give him something to make him sign a contract extension, when he is looking at what much older pitchers are getting, now, on 6-8 year deals. Of course, I want no opt outs. I said that clearly, but if he says no opt-out- no deal, I look for ways to add at least 1-2 more years to our control rather than see him walk after 2026. Yes, I'd guarantee him $200M, if he does not opt out. I don't give him $200M in the first 3 years. It's not an opt out after 2025, it's an opt out after the one year of added control (after 2027.) Corrao signed a 6 year deal with an opt-out after 2 years. Crochet's would be after 3 years, if the extension began in 2025. It would be an opt out after 2 years, if the extension began in 2026 or one year if it began in 2027. Sorry, if I confused you and MVP, but I did say I'd rather get one more year of control than none.

I was very clear. He has 2 years of control, now. I said I'd rather give him an opt out after 2027 than see him walk after his year two arb in 2026. Nothing I said even hinted at letting him walk after 2025 or 2026.