notin

Some of this could be re-arranged depending on whom (if anyone) the Sox trade away. For example, if they deal Vazquez or Dalbec, a catcher or 1b/3b becomes a requirement...

Yes. The Fungibles...

Ok. Of course I was referring to the MiLB contract crowd, and not the multimillion dollar free agents...

Or Pawtucket depth. But really, all of these guys - and I should have added Valdez to the list - have track records that indicates they are more likely to be problems than solutions. And recent success in a short season doesn’t change this. The pitcher the Sox brought in last year with the best track record was Zack Godley, and he completely flopped. I don’t expect that a few good innings from Springs or Brice change much about them as pitchers either. But in Pawtucket where they can be called up as an injury replacement, fine. That’s really what these guys all are...

I think when it comes to guys like Brice, Walden, Springs, Stock, Mazza, and Brewer, the argument isn’t about why the Sox should release any or all of them; it’s about why the Sox the Sox should keep any or all of them...

We have to DFA someone first. You cannot make a Rule 5 selection unless you have an open 40 man roster spot...

So either more DFAs to come or the Sox will not be making a Rule 5 draft pick this year...

It’s not uncommon to leave A-ball players exposed. The Sox have 6 unprotected names, 5 of whom are above A-ball. Hopefully they create room for 2 more on the 40-man roster...

That was the public statements about the policy. And since an increased number of high school and college ballplayers were taking them, it was a good idea to stop sending the message they were necessary...

So you'll take the week off and post on other Sox sites?

Arguably they did. He had two years left on the deal. his first year in Boston was not very good. His second year was very good, but carried by one electric month...

With his Dodgers' contract before the Sox signed him...

If the 3 batter minimm rule sticks, it does take away the advantage Springs and Hall had...

Rule 5 draft protection deadlie is tonight. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/11/mlb-deadline-protect-players-rule-5-draft-2020.html Sox currently have only 4 spots....

And that is what happens when you use the minor league guys who are supposed to be for depth in place of actual starters. But the Sox simply could not spend on anyone any better...

Doesn't that go for any free agent contract?

JD Drew?

Getting rid of steroids was the right move. When it all started, the idea was to prevent younger kids from thinking it was the only way to make it. Sadly, it turned into a referendum on Hall of Fame caliber players and their worthiness. MLB and MLBPA needs to find another means to demotivate younger playrs from using PEDs...

The mantra was "Doctored baseballs = fine. Corked bats = cheating." The guy who basically made cheating really bad was bat stuffer Albert Belle, because he was such an intolerable human being. THere were dozens of stories about his bats and the suspicions, and there was the awesome Jason Grimsley story about swapping Belle's confiscated bat. If he had been nicer, it might not have been so frowned upon. (And Grimsley might have learned something about avoiding cheating rather than have his own HGH scandal.) Of course, then Canseco spilled the beans and we learned what Jayson Stark summed up very well. "Fans don't like cheating if it leads to more home runs."

He's the only one who openly admitted it and gave the illegal pitch top billing in his own autobiography. He basically mocked the rules and was allowed to get away with it...

If MLB and the MLBPA are serious about getting rid of PEDs, they need to make the penalties financial. you're not discouraging players from cheating their way to six figure contracts by penalizing them with a tainted legacy and the ability to keep every contractual dollar. One posssibility might be to have every player who tyests positive (with X amount of re-tests to make sure it is not a false positive) is to make them play out the remainder of the current contract for the leaque minimum, or to deny arbitration/raises for players in their first 6 seasons, and make them play all the way to free agency for the league minimum. I bet you would see a massive drop in PED usage at that point. At least in the Majors. Minor leaguers still have nothing to lose. The owners would likely be all for it, but the MLBPA would balk. And they would be wrong to do so, because it gives the appearance that they promote PED usage in order to secure more money, which is exactly the opposite message MLB needs to be sending...

At a minimum, they need to kick out Gaylord Perry....

I am 100% positive it won't be...

I usally like the opt outs, because if the player is good then you get those seasons from him and let someone else watch him decline. The opt out was the only redeeming feature of Price's contract. And I would have gladly let him walk after 3 years regardless of how good he was in his fourth, just to avoid the inevitable decline in the fifth, sixth and seventh seasons...

Not that I have very much in the way of expectations for that crowd, but it might be worth noting the leader in IP of those pitchers was Godley with 28.2. And FIP indicates the numbers from Covey (3.91) and Springs (4.81) With samples that small, every run becomes far too significant. For example, with Taylor and his whopping 7.2 IP, every run was worth 1.23 on his ERA. Give him one or two good defensive plays behind him, and that ERA could plummet to as low as 6.13, which still is not good, but it does show the massive impact of a single play...