notin

Getting it to work in a satisfactory manner is part of the implementation. I don't think they're going to rush it out there is it isn't right, or at least close. So now you have gone from nonsensical slippery slopes to the other safe-haven of people trying to argue the losing side - the notion that "it isn't perfect, so it shouldn't happen". Will it work better than the existing system? After all, it would be pretty stupid to not implement an improvement solely it up because it was not going to work for the 2 or 3 eephus pitches that get thrown every year...

Apparently the article you’re citing will be written 1,000 years from now…

Not true https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/

Inside info? Or will you be commanding them to do such?

If the Sox aren’t going to bring back Schwarber, is Duran in the plans for 2021?

He will probably learn to hit at some point. But will he ever learn to judge a flyball?

The first no is a good thing. The second one is a situation that can be dealt with via software, but I could see being overlooked at first...

I am not so sure that history is based on techniques as much as it is on results. Bloom's predecessor, mentor and former boss Andrew Friedman is doing in LA the polar opposite of how things were done in Tampa. And historically, Tampa actually has signed players to contract extensions far earlier than most teams do. Evan Longoria signed his first extension after 2 weeks in MLB. Matt Moore signed his after 2 starts. Picture the Sox offering an extension to Jarren Duran right now. THAT would be how Tampa handled the situation...

It's a necessity that shouldn't be. That pitch framing exists shows the shortcomings of the current system, since it involves taking a pitch that is clearly not a strike per the rules and making someone think it is...

Was that called a strike? And would it be called one by an automated system since it bounced so far in front of the plate that it was able to enter the actual automated strike zone?

Lester had two really good seasons with the Cubs, but then he started to tail off real fast...

Certainly the GMs have a dollar amount...

I wanted Beltre back a ot more than I wanted AGon. But it was obvious even from the structure of the contract (ridiculously low player option) that he was taking a one year deal that squeezed him on to the Sox roster under their budget limits, but he had every intention of checking out the market one more time...

Pedroia, Bogaerts, Sale, Varitek, Porcello, Beckett. The Sox have signed their own players plenty of times. The problem is, a lot of players really want to test free agency. They know that's where the money is, and they have been working for reaching free agency for most of their adult lives. No one hires an agent so they can take a hometown discount...

Well somebody needs to do it. Mike Elias is clearly not up to the task...

If the Sox are not going to spend on Schwarber, are they willing to spend on Correa/Seager/Story?

Some people do still trades are to get rid of people and not primarily to get anything back. Now ZIPS hates Duran, projecting him to be worth 1.5 fWAR over the next 3 seasons. BTV gives him a surplus value of $23.5 mill, which is probably reasonable…

I’ve said Duran isn’t a good defensive outfielder. I’m not alone in saying. In fact, pretty much everyone who’s ever seen him play says it about him. I am all for trading him because I think he can get back something decent and there is no place for him in the Sox starting outfield. Making him a 4th outfielder where he gets maybe 100 PA a season is actually much worse than anything I’ve ever said about him. Believe it or not, calling a player trade bait is a bigger compliment than calling him bench material. At least I think he could start somewhere. Specifically in Oakland…

Accidentally?

Let's say the Sox do plan to trade Bogaerts. First, is this really the right off-season? Any team willing to spend on a shortstop can go sign Carlos Correa or Corey Seager or Javier Baez or Trevor Story and not give up any prospects beyond the draft pick, and also get them for more than a single season of control. So any team interested in Bogaerts will be a team that 1) needs a shortstop 2) has a significant budget 3) plans to be competitive in 2022 and 4) cannot afford the free agent players listed above. Obviosuly the teams losing those shortstops should candidates, but the Dodgers appear to have already filled Seager's role. The Cubs and Rockies are not likely to be very competitive next season. That leaves the Astros as one potential target, Maybe the Phillies? One could argue the Yankees fit the criteria, but I think they are a likely landing spot for Seager and his left-handed bat. And even if they weren't, the Sox are not dealing them Bogaerts (I hope). An maybe we can add the giants to that list, since they undoubtedly plan to try and get back in the battle for the AL West, and while they are losing Brandon Crawford to free agency, they also have a lot of other money coming off their books. So they might be spenders and grab one of the 4. So the Astros or the Phillies. No one wants the Astros. Let them go sign Freddy Galvis. That leaves the Phillies. Per BTV, Bogaerts (with 1 year left) has a surplus value of $32.4 million. This makes him roughly equal to Philly RHRP/RHSP Ranger Suarez ($29.4 mill) or maybe a package of former 1st round pick RHP Mick Abel, AA Shortstop BRyson Stott, and the contract of Jean Segura (1 yr/$15.8 mill). The flaw in this plan is the Phillies might just as well go forward with Stott and Segura up the middle next season and allow themselves to hold on to the pitching depth. So where would Bogaerts go?. The Giants? For prospects?

Wrong off-season...

Who?

Not if he was buying A-ha and Kajagoogoo albums...

3 Fenway Franks is enough in one year for me...

Why bother explaining, beyond saying this is the plan going forward? I never saw any follow up to the Betts trade beyond the normal "direction going forward" stuff. And while his negotiations got pretty public, they were also going on for a few years. Some fans might get upset if they deal Bogaerts, but it's not like this requires some sort of special planted story. Player salaries and contracts are all so public now (to an extent) that suspecting dealing Bogerts this off-season is hardly new conjecture. I've been throwing out the possibility on this bard for months, and I pay very little attention to the Boston media. And story or not, that Bogaerts plans to opt out hardly qualifies as news. There's a reason that clause was put in there in the first place. Of course, one could argue that by making X's decision to opt out public, the Sox would be risking making it even harder to deal him...