moonslav59

I'd be fine with Narvaez as the back-up catcher, since he is a defensive catcher, but only if we fix 2 of the remaining 3 areas of need I see: RP: Hoffam (We wont get Scott) or maybe Estevez, if we get Bregman, who would check off 2 boxes, at once. Corner IF D (Bregman or Arenado) RHB: (Teoscar or Bregman) I think adding just Teoscar and hoping Crawford and Whitlock fix the pen might be wishful thinking. No way are Hendriks, Wilson & Chapman making up for losing Jansen and Martin, by themselves.

I totally disagree. We all knew Fox was never going to be our wire-to-wire closer. We knew we'd likely have to try several others to find one that might end up being okay, at best. It ended up working out just as many expected. Sure, we started the year with Fox as "the one." it did not really start with the idea that we'd use one guy day one and another day two, so in that sense, your point is correct, but nobody viewed Fox as the season-long closer. As it turned out, these were our game-ending pitchers (GF leaders): 35 Kim 31 Lyon 15 Embree 13 Timlin 10 Fox (would have been more had he done well) 8 Mendoza, 7 Jones, 6 Shiell & Williamson and 26 by 11 scrubs. Saves/Save opportunities 16/19 Kim 9/12 Lyon 2/6 Timlin 3/5 Fox (I was at that opening day game in TB!) 1/2 Embree and Shiell 0/2 Williamson 4/9 by 9 scrubs

I've made my views on Buehler-type signings very clear from day one. At least he is younger and not so far removed from great seasons, but he's still a big dice roll. I fully realize that Burnes, Fried and guys like Gio are/were dice rolls, too, but they all have/had better hopes for giving 30+ GSs than Buehler has. (Same with Sale, Nate, Sandoval, Kluber, Wacha, Hill, Paxton and Richards) I'm totally fine with people having high hopes for Buehler (and Sandoval, too.) I think they can be good or great again, as well, but it's not my choice. With our past history of failures on these types of pitchers, I'm not sure why you guys don't seem to even understand why I am not so joyful. Surely, you can at least understand my position, right?

Well, I was assuming Grichuk was for an Anthony-less OF. I'm all for opening the season with Anthony pencilled in a a FT OF'er (CF v R and RF v L.) I do not think playing Ref in LF vs LH"d SP'ers (maybe 40-45 games a year) is going to be a major hit on our defense. His bat is amazing vs LHPs. Yes, he could platoon at DH with Yoshida, but Yoshida does better vs LHPs than almost all our other lefties not named Devers and Casas. I do not think we need to add another OF'er, unless it is a big difference maker on offense, like Teoscar would be. (Santander would be nice, but 5 years is absurd.) If we sign a RHB or trade for one, I'd much prefer Bregman or Arenado (with cash involved.) Depending on how much STL pays (COL already pays $5M x 2) on Arenado, I'd be mildly happy with an Arenado (for Fitts) & Hoffman end to our winter. 1. Duran LF v R/CR v L 2. Abreu RF v R/Ref LF v L 3. Casas DH/1B 4. Devers 1B/DH 5. Arenado 3B 6. Story SS 7. Campbell 2B (or start the year with DHam-Grissom platoon- Romy if Grissom sucks) 8. Anthony CF v R. RF v L 9. Wong and Narvaez (with Narvaez catching more than many expect) Bench: Rafaela, Wong/Narvaez, DHam/Grissom/Romy and Yoshida SP: Crochet, Houck, Bello, Gio, Buehler>Sandoval (once Buehler hits the IL) RP: Chapman-Henriks co-closers, Hoffman, Salten & Whitlock (7th-9th inning set up) and Crawford, Wink and Wilson as longmen or lefty specialist. This, I might be optimistic about. I guess it's doable, if we are okay with going over the tax line to do it, or we get STL to pay down a bigger chunk of Arenado's deal- maybe by adding DHam to the package.

I was hoping a big chunk of the $700M offered to Soto would be spent on Fried or Burnes plus maybe Bregman or Teoscar. I doubt we get any of those 4. We have not fixed the pen, the defense, the RHB issue or our catching. There is still time, but we just spend $50M on hopes and prayers (Buehler, Sandoval and Chapman.) That is a $40M AAV out of the $60-70M top estimated winter budget. I can see reason for hope, but this is not what I hoped for.

The deconstruction of the record-setting 2018 World Champion roster has been well documented and discussed for years. I'm going to focus on just Sox management's choices on adding pitchers to the team. Many were vain attempts at replacing some very productive pitchers, although some of which had already begun to drop off, such as Kimbrel, Kelly, Porcello, Price and ERod. I won't get into the lack of high draft choices and top bonuses for pitchers, but that did not help the situation. Some trades, like the ones for Pivetta, Wink and hopefuls like Slaten, Fitts and Priester worked out fine or may work out that way, but others did not work out well (most deadline moves) or were okay (Ottavino.) My focus will be on Free Agent additions starting after the Sale and Nate extensions/re-signing, both of which involved SP'ers with serious injury concerns and could be viewed as the start of the team's philosophy of spending less than top market prices, due to dependability concerns. Although many felt Sale was an overpay, to me, he clearly took less than market value had he been viewed as 100% healthy. Nate's contract was also less than his true worth, due to his injury history, but these points are debatable, and have been discussed often. After 2018, we did not bring back Kimbrel, Pomeranz and Kelly, Pom was 6th in GS and Kimbrel and Kelly were our two best RP'ers, although a bit shaky at the end of the 2018 regular season. (Kimbrel was shaky through the playoffs, too.) We added zero pitching that winter, and put all our eggs in just bringing back Sale & Nate. (I won't go into everyday paydays like Bogey's extension.) To me, this was the beginning of the end- clear and simple. When the vaunted rotation of Sale, Price, Nate, ERod and Porcello imploded, it was not a pretty sight to see. What did we do to improve the pitching staff situation for 2020 and onwards, even after knowing ERod & Sale were going to be out for all of 2020? Next to nothing. 2020 additions: Martin Perez at $6M w option and $500K buyout and Collin McHugh to a min wage contract. Perez was never viewed as quality. He had a career 95 ERA+ , when we signed him, including an 84 ERA+ in his previous 2 years. This was essentially a throw away deal with no past history of doing very well and no hopes for significant improvement, although he did have a 1.5 years nice stretch, the second we dumped him. Perez was the replacement for both Price & Porcello. That pretty much says it all. McHugh fit the profile of a pitcher who had some past glory, but with major injury history. He missed all of 2020 with COVID. (He never pitched more than 70 IP, afterwards.) 2021 was the beginning of a template we have used for 4 winters in a row, counting this one. That winter, we took on Ottavino's contract after a 5.89 year with the Yankees in just 18 IP. It was a stab in the dark in hopes that a 35 year old pitcher could regain the glory he had over 2 good seasons he had in 2018 and 2019 and one way before in 2013. He was a trend-setter. We brought back Perez, after a ho-hum 2019 season at less money ($4.5M + the $500K buybuyout of the second year option.)out we used the following winter, after he did poorly.) We also began the one year trend by signing Garrett Richards to $10M/1 (actually $8.5M with the $1.5M. He was essentially Price's replacement, skipping a year. Pererz remained Porcello's replacement. 2022 seemed like they made a significant attempt at filling the holes left in the pitching staff since 2019, but again, we saw the same types of "cheap" choices, instead of going for tried and true quality pitchers. We had some success in 2021 and knew we were losing ERod (the 3rd starter lost from the 2018-2019 rotation.) We signed oft-injured Wacha, Hill and Paxton, along with a head-scratching Diekman & Sawamura signings for the pen. (The Strahm signing worked well.) All toal, we spent $36M on mostly 1 year deals. Paxton was known to be out for most of 2022 and was mostly a 2023 signing with hopes that he could be plugged into the late 2022 rotation at a $10M cost. He could easily be the poster boy of our 4-5 year philosophy of going cheap on flawed pitchers with histories of plus pitching. Paxton was several years removed from his decent years from 2014-2019, but even in that stretch, he missed a lot of starts. Paxton missed all of year one, and did okay year two before, you guessed it, going on the IL, when we needed him most. Wacha ($7M/1) actually worked out better than we should have expected. His "glory years" were way back in 20214-2015. His 6 prior seasons were pretty awful: 89 ERA+ while averaging about 20 starts per season. Hill was a 42 y/o going on 83 y/o pitcher, when we signed him. I don't think I need to go over his long history of injuries among spotted times of glory. Like Wacha, he did better than we should have expected. We were lucky to be able to dump Diekman's $8M/2 contract for McGuire, at the deadline. Sawamura's $3M/2 deal ended before the 2 years were up. Strahm at $3M/1 was maybe the best pitcher (or pitching deal) signed by Bloom. 2023 was a joke, in terms of fixing the rotation and replacing Wacha and Hill. Kluber $10M/1 was it. The Paxton return was the other great, "cheap" hope. Although Kluber had looked okay, the season before, his ERA+ was just 84 in 2022. He was 5 years removed from his real glory years, which were very significant and 5 years long. No doubt, the guy was once great, but there was no indication he'd regain that glory at age 37. It was a total punt based on faint hopes of past greatness. We did make some very serious moves to improve the pen with Jansen ($32M/2) and Martin ($18M/2..) Both worked out well for us, but even looking closely at these two signings, we can see the same philosophy at work: avoid signing the best of the best, who still had some prime years left for aging pitchers, in hopes they can eek out a couple more years of greatness or good enoughnness. Jansen was 35 and 36. Martin was 37 and 38. Both were "cheaper," because they were older and were expected to decline. Lucky for us, they mostly did not. Diaz was signed for $102M/5 in 2023 and Hader was signed for $95M/5, last winter. I'm not saying we should have gone there, but the fact is, we purposely went cheaper to avoid spending on more dependable pitchers. 2024 broke the mold. The Giolito signing was based almost entirely on dependability, but he was still a "cheap" signing based on a piss-poor second half of his previous season and no real great history. The Hendriks signing mirrored the Paxton one, and we still have 2025 to look at, to judge how good that one was, but he never gave us 1 IP in year 1, despite an extectation of a late season arrival. Chase Anderson and Criswell were not really noteworthy signings, except that Criswell worked out well. 2025: $21M on Buehler, three years removed from his greatest season and 5 years removed from his only other 138+ IP season of excellent pitching. Another "cheaper" and shorter contract based on past glory. Sandoval's $18M/2 deal is also from the Paxton-Hendriks mold- more about year 2 with hopes of a year 1 appearance. Sandoval has never pitched more than 150 IP and is 3 years removed from his nice 2022 season of 138 ERA+ pitching in 149 IP. In 44 GS, over the last 2 years, his ERA+ in 98. Yet another cheaper signing based on hopes of years ago decent pitching. Chapman at $11M/1 is another stab in the dark, although he has had some recent success and relatively, little injury history. His reason for being "cheap," like Jansen and Martin beforehand, is his age. He turns 37 before opening day. He's already shown he is not the pitcher he once was. 2021-2024: 1.326 WHIP and 2.4 K/BB (14.4/6.0) 2012-2020: 0.990 WHIP and 4.0 K/BB (15.2/3.8) I'm counting Wilson as a step above a minor league signing- one also based on long-ago success. This trend is as clear as day. Nothing changed, this winter, except the dollar amounts are higher and these guys are not 5 years removed from greatness or success, but rather 2-3 years away. Buehler and Sandoval are much younger than other stabs, but Chapman and Wilson are not. There is certainly a lot of upside potential in these guys, but what remains is also a lot of doubt about their health (SP'ers) and or age (RP'ers,) and the common denominator over the last 5 years is going CHEAP!.

Assuming Anthony is out of the picture, why not just do this and use Grichuk's money on a RP'er or catcher (via trade?) vs RHP: LF: Duran, CF: Rafaela, RF: Abreu (PH/4th: Refsnyder) vs LHP: LF: Refsnyder, CF: Duran, RF: Rafaela (PH/4th: Abreu)

Yes, if healthy, and if we don't have to go too far beyond starter number 6 or 7. We still have piss-poor corner IF defense and will need 140+ games from Story at SS to help these pitchers not need to get 4 outs a few times a game. We still need a big RHB or the kids to come through. We do have the okay to expect improvement from so many players still pre-prime, too. We still need a catcher, unless we like the excellent defense from Narvaez and are willing to maybe have a sub .600 batter to get it. It may come down to our pen, which has a lot of promising pieces, some who were great, years ago, some who looked pretty good, recently and some young ones who were good, okay or shaky in 2024, but still have "the stuff" to not give up on. One major stumbling block might be that we have to cycle through 6-10 RP'ers to find the mix that works (if we ever do.) Pen depth is a very nice thing to have, but so is having a bonafide closer. Every ring year had one, although Uehara was not known to be one that prior winter. Whitlock could be the savior, as could Hendriks, Chapman or even Slaten, but none reek of being "the sure thing." I don't want to bring up the "Closer by committee" fiasco, but I just did. Hendriks, Chapman, Whitlock, Slaten are the sure 4, if healthy and no significant age-related declines. Wink & Wilson probably have a slot reserved for them, unless they meltdown. The other two are up for grabs between 10+ guys (not counting starters Criswell, Priester, Fitts, Fulmer & Dobbins): Guerrero, Adams, Bernardino, Penrod, Kelly, Weissert, Shugart, Campbell, Mata, Mills and maybe, eventually, some AA arms like Sandlin, Early, Hoppe & Troye. There is reason to be hopeful: I don't want to sound like the Grinch, but these rosters built on hopes are wearing me out.

I've never liked the taste of Kool-Aid, anyway, but I'm not taking even a sip. Maybe, my mood will change. Merry Christmas, everyone! Happy Holidays to those who do not celebrate Xmas.

Crochet makes it significantly better, despite some worries about getting near 170-180+ IP. Buehler is a huge question marks with a higher ceiling than the one he will replace, but with way less IP expectations/predictions. Gio may or may not be better than whoever he replaces, and the IP is just as speculative. The rotation looks better and should be better. The pen looks about equal, at best, to me- also with many question marks. Our catching has not improved. We still need a big RHB. Our defense should improve, if players come back from injuries and then stay healthy, but we said the exact same thing the last 2 winters. Our corner IF did not improve. Unless Naravaez starts 50_ games, our catching D has not improved. There is still time to fix the remaining weak areas, but my expectations are about as low as they have been in a long time.

a self-imposed curse.

Word is, the Dodgers are too far away in price, so I'm not sure they are in the bidding, anymore, but I seriously doubt we get TH or Hoffman. Santander wants 5 years: nope. Scott is too expensive for JH. I hope I eat my words, but this looks so much more like the same ole-same ole, that I'm still a non believer. It was nice to get Crochet. We filled one of 5 needs and applied bandaids to gushing wounds in the other 4 areas of need (pen, RHB, catcher and corner IF D.)

Yup, more of the same but maybe in overdrive.

I'm supposed to be happy when we fall short on top players? Yes, I moan and will keep moaning when we sign projects instead of top quality and dependable players. I think Fried got the same AAV as Buehler + Sandoval, so excuse me, if I'm not thrilled about that. I love the Crochet trade, but we had 4-5 major holes to fill and we filled one. No Catcher. No improved defense. No RHBP. No improved pen. I'm glad your Christmas will be merry.

Hendriks 3.9 in 2019 (2.7 in 2021) Chapman 3.2 plus 3 seasons between 2.5 and 2.7) We are living in the past with these guys.

c) None had more than 146 IP in 2024. Crochet: Only pitched over 65 IP once from 2018 (college) to 2024 and never over 146 (2024.) Buehler: 3 season not going over 76 IP Sandoval: never gone over 149 IP Gio: 185 in 2023, but a bad ERA that season (4.88)

I hope I'm wrong, but that seems like a pipedream. After each signing of someone we needed, we look to the next best guy(s) and say, "just go get 'em." Why will it be different, this time? Yes, a gree it can be, but I am so far from expecting it, it's not close to being funny.

Pivetta was about as dependable as can be. He was never great, but at times pitched like a decent #2 or #3 SP'er (top 45-75 out of 150 MLB SP'ers.) That is not great, but when you look at the best pitchers on the Sox, since 2019, nobody cam close to being as good AND dependable. Nate came closest, and he started only 73 out of a possible 111 starts from 2019-2022. That's just under making 2 out of every 3 starts. While Pivetta missed some starts due to a one time demotion from the rotation, which is far from a feather in his cap, he hardly missed any starts due to injury. The guy had a 103 ERA+ for the Sox and took the ball every 5 days. While Buehler's 122 ERA+, since 2020 is significantly better than Nick's 103, he made 69 starts out of a possible 111. That's missing 38% of his starts. He has an 83 ERA+ in his last 28 GS. Why do we seem to be so confident he will do better in his next 28 starts? Sure, better than an 83 ERA+ seems like good projection, but can we really be that certain he will pitch to Pivetta's 103 ERA+ in 2024? I do readily admit he has a better chance to hit a 120 ERA+ than Pivetta does in 2024, but why should we expect that or even think he's an odds on favorite to even hit 110? (BTW, Pivetta hit 113 in 2023 and is at 108 from 2023-2024.)

The rotation is better, and the rotation depth is, too. If Buehler and Sandoval can cobble together 25-35 starts, it may be significantly better, but that is a big hope- not just on the GS and IP front, but on the "will they be good" front, as well. We also cannot see any regression from Houck and Bello, and we have to hope Gio can pitch like he did in 2021. (One could argue the first half of '23, I guess.) The pen may be slightly better, but again, we are relying on a lot of hope: Whitlock's health, a return of Hendriks, Slaten not regressing, and an aged Chapman holding it together for one more year. We do have better extended pen depth that 2024, and we will likely need it, again. The offense will rely on the kids to give a boost, or healthy seasons from Story and Casas. Again, no room for regression from Abreu, Rafaela or anyone else- just to stay even with the loss of O'Neill. We still have issue vs lefties. Our defense can be much better, if Story stays healthy, but that seems like a broken and scratched record. If Narvaez is the back-up catcher, we should be better on D, there, if he plays 60+ games. Just by not playing Rafaela and DHam at SS can help, even if Story is on the IL. I'm not seeing a significant improvement. There is still time to add a RHB (Teoscar,) a solid RP'er (Scott, Hoffman or Estevez) or a better catcher than Wong-Narvaez, but why should we expect that to happen? We may choose to get to the tax line by extending Crochet and maybe others.

Respectfully, I think you have. We are not going to sign Teoscar and good pen arm... not even Estevez. Chapman+ Estevez + Wilson is a step down from Jansen & Martin, and the pen was our biggest weakness over the second half of 2024. It was the worst in MLB, and it will be the same or worse, on paper. Teoscar might be as good as the 2024 O'Neill, but go ahead and call it a plus, and I am far from assuming we add him. The O would be about the same. The D should get better, but that depends on Story and how little Wong catches. Maybe we're even going into the rotation. I like our rotation depth better than 2024, but it takes a very rosy "perspective" to have hope in Sandoval giving us anything, this year and Buehler doing something he hasn't done in 4 years. How is thinking Buehler will do well, based on a 10 inning stretch, a bad perspective? Okay... Crochet>>> Pivetta Houck=Houck Bello= Bello Gio <???> Crawford Yea!!! We have one plus over 2024! Schedule the parade! This winter ha ssucked, and adding Teoscar and Estevez might squeek us into the playoffs, but no way should we be viewed as a serious contender, even with rose-colored glasses on.

Even he was a 1 in 5 year shot ( worked one year.) I'm not saying it can never work out. I'm just saying I'm sick of these types of signings and hoping the guy we signed finds his past glory. Richards hadn't pitched more than 77 innings in 5 years and had a 4.65 ERA in his previous 2 seasons (60 IP.) He was actually able to stay pretty healthy for us, but he sucked. Kluber did okay, the year before we signed him (at age 36,) but had less than 120 IP in his previous 3 seasons with a 4.40 ERA. His last great season was also 5 years prior. Wacha and Hill actually did okay for us, but both had long injury histories before we signed them. Wacha had 370 IP in his prior 4 season (4.67 ERA) and a 4.62 ERA over his prior 6 seasons. What were we hoping for? The 127 IP and 3.32 ERA was a dream come true, but still far from what we needed, that year. Hill's injury history has been well documented. We got more from him that expected (124 IP and 4.27 ERA.) Like Hendriks, this year, Paxton was supposed to join the team at the end of 2022, but nothing. He gave us an okay 19 starts in 2023, but went on the IL, when we needed him most. He had pitched 22 innings the previous 2 seasons. By the time he pitched for us, he was 4 seasons removed from being a decent pitcher going 120-160 IP for 4 straight years. Now, It's Buehler's turn, and we should be hopeful? Why? Because of 10 IP? Because of something he did 4 years ago? Because it's 4 years ago, not 5, like the others? Because he's 30 and not 34-37, or 80 like Hill? I hope I'm dead wrong on Buehler, but I just can't take even a sip of this Kool-Aid. Maybe by ST'ing, I might, but right now, I'm toast.

Maybe one of these stabs in the dark on injury-recovering/recovered projects will eventually work, but I'm tired of looking at how great these guys used to be and dreaming they can come close, again. The Sale saga took away all of that type of hope, and the timing of our Sale dump followed by a Cy Young year was the final nail in the coffin. Sure, the Gio signing was supposed to break that mold, but he was never really a great pitcher, anyway.

Well, Crawford would be our long man/ spot starter, and with the injury history of our staff, he may get 33 starts, anyway. (But only if our SP'ers do us a favor and only miss time, one at a time and not all at once. Yeah, right!)

You drank the Kool-Aid, after we warned you dozens of times.

We can't outbid anyone on Sasaki, so that's not about JH being cheap. Buehler over Burnes is. Hell, Buehler over Flaherty or even gasp... Pivetta is being cheap, too. Hell, Kikuchi and Manaea are looking like good deals.