notin

Maybe, although history has taught us many poor defensive 3B can move to 1B and become excellent defensive players. Martk Teixeira and Jeff Bagwell, for example. Youkilis was not a poor defender at 3B, but was certainly an elite one at 1B. The number of weak defending third basemen who move the the OF and become Gold Glove outfielders is a lot more limited. Anyone besides Alex Gordon? If you look around MLB, most first basemen fall into at least one of three categories - left-handed, very tall, or washed out at another position. The rest of them fall into a category known as "Joey Votto"...

So then how does Sale, who has been on active 40 man roster since 2010, still have an option remaining?

In his hypothetical scenario, I think he is referring to there being no Jeter Downs or Connor Wong. While Downs is not on the 40 man roster, how much depth do they have there right now?

Even with a lot of bad Boston teams in the past, yes, it was definitely nice to see if Boggs could still take a batting title or if rice could challenge in any of the triple crown categories. But that always felt like a consolation when the team was just flat out losing anyway...

... which is why I am hoping Jack Leiter falls to number 4 and the Sox do not take another high school shortstop...

Agree. If the argument is your're buying his age 31 season, it should end right there. Heck, we do not even know if he will have an age 31 season...

To be fair, Devers is an unknown defensive commodity at first base, and might even be better than Casas given the opportunity. After all, Casas was moved off 3b for a reason, too...

The argument about batting second for the best hitter is actually in line with your first point - more plate appearances. Basically, the argument is every spot a hitter moves up in the order nets him 18 more plate appearances. Obviously that would mean putting the best hitter at leadoff, but with someone like Bogaerts it also would mean that he comes up with a lot fewer baserunners on (re: RBI opportunities). The downside of moving up a great hitter too far is that there is a potential reduction in these opportunities. hitting behind the 7-8-9 hitters creates the fewest. One gets more hitting behind the 8-9-1 and even more hitting behind the 9-1-2. etc. But putting him in the second hole is a nice sweet spot between maximizing his plate appearances while still having him come up with a decent amount of runners on base. Yes, hitting 3rd gets more RBI chances, but the logic is the 18 more PA outweigh that difference, probably very slightly...

1) How much better of a trade chip is a 25yo player with 5.5 years of cotnrol vs a 25yo player with 6 years of control? I don't think the extra half-year of control adds much to the equation. 2) It's really tough to argue that demoting Taylor or Valdez to keep Houck on the roster constitutes going "all in". By this logic, the Sox should demote Devers to Worcester for the season and get the extra year of control. In fact, that actually makes more sense that trying to do so with Houck. (Which still doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense.) 3) Actually Tampa's approach has been to lock up younger players as early as possible, with prime examples being Evan Longoria and Matt Moore, neither of whom had a dozen games under their belt before signing extensions. The goal is to avoid the rather unpredictable arbitration years. More recently, they have been trying to get something done with Randy Arozarena. And we can all expect Brandon Lowe to get such a deal at some point this year or early in the coming off-season. Now, they will probably deal Willy Adames this offseason, even amidst the overcrowded free agent shortstop market, but that also involves a potential clearing for top prospect Wander Franco, and not an attempt to avoid paying him...

Agreed. And while it is a tough role to quantify due to the instances like that one you bring up, which are very numeous, the real issue is how manager seemingly manage games with the save in mind and reserve their best reliever for a nnth inning role. If the Yankees had used Rivera to face the opposing team's best hitters late in the game (say, 7th inning or later) and let the ninth inning saves fall where they may, with some going to Rivera, but likely more going to some combination of other relievers like Mike Stanton or Jeff Nelson - both very talented relief pitchers - would it have changed the amount of titles they won? (In fact, one could argue that leaving Rivera in for the 9th inning of game 7 of the 2001 World Series to ace the 7-8-9 spots in Arizona's lineup after he just pitched the 8th and instead bringing in another reliever for that final inning might have given the Yankees another title)...

Agreed. Even if he is not a starter, he is a better bullpen option than Valdez or Taylor, both of whom have options. Middle relief would be fine. Or put him in a closer role or a high leverage role. And Houck is in his age 25 season. So sending him down for service time considerations only gets you his age 31 season. Not the same as letting a 27 or 28yo player hit free agency by a long shot...

To be fair here, none of Urshela, Tauchman and Voit could hit before they came to the Yankees either...

Send him!!

To be fair, they have changed a lot over the years. Which is another flaw with saves. Using your best reliever to get key hitters (interpretation wide open) out is a always great strategy. But the save stat is overrated and polluted for multiple reasons, and it always seemed to me that the primary reason the closer evolved into a 9th inning specialist had more to do with managers being able to handle press conferences than actual in-game pressure...

But by dealing those two prospects, they saved $570,000. (Possible sarcasm?)

but they also burn an option year every season in the majors, right?

Really Taylor and his 45.00 ERA and 9.00 WHIP would be lucky if he was just demoted to Worcester. I know it's only 2 games, but he is not someone I would mistake for a major league pitcher right now...

How can Sale have options left? Not that it matters, since he is not exactly someone anyone should ever consider demoting when he is healthy...

I'll bite. Who's on it?

Teams have 8 and 9 man bullpens now. Your argument might have made sense in 1978...

Houck has options. Perez does not. Neither does Richards, or most veterans with more than 4 years in MLB. So sending them down requires clearing waivers. The bigger question is - why not send Taylor down?

Texas is paying the full freight. Basically they bought two Yankee prospects, much like how the Red Sox did with German...

Antonio Cabello and Josh Stowers headed to Texas. Cabello used to be a good prospect. Not sure if he still is. No announcement on the cash, but MLBTR thinks Texas is paying a significant portion of it, presumably more than half...

And the Yankees acquire Rougned Odor. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/04/yankees-trade-rougned-odor-rangers.html I was just thinking the other day that this team needs another middle infielder incapable of playing shortstop...

So in a year they went to the WS, you rate them "pretty good". Tough judge...