notin

I think more like they get a lefty-hitting career platoon guy like Matt Adams, and let him and Travis handle 1b. If they go the platoon route...

But he is only taking the opportunity of Sam Travis-ty...

And we will call him BeninTONdi...

He might have seen the 2015 Trenton Thunder, that had Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge. They panned out ok...

Going to have to. He might end up playing CF...

Maybe he is DHing to replace Martinez?

So you're fallback is conspiracy theories? The real problem with the drug tests in 2003 is that they tested for many drugs that were actually not illegal in MLB. It was a survey just to see how rampant the usage was and whether or not any policy was needed. MLB's original drug policy from 1991 was done with the intention of getting illegal drugs out of the game and cleaning up the massive black eye MLB took in the 1980's from rampant cocaine abuse, and basically said "No illegal drugs, including illegal steroids.". The goal here was to update it to cover some of the PED's that were not classified under the Controlled Substance Act. And avoid future embarrassments like the Pittsburgh Drug Trials (highlighted by Tim Raines' confession of playing with glass vials in his back pocket, which necessitated sliding into second head first), the death of Rod Scurry, the imprisonment of 4 KC Royals during the offseason, and the multiple lifetime suspensions for players like Steve Howe. So the 104 failed tests, not only were the names withheld, but also the drugs tested positive for, and some of those drugs were not illegal in MLB at the time. So unless you can fill in all these blanks, you're just trying to keep alive a myth that was debunked a long time ago...

Brings back memories of O'Leary-Lewis-Bragg in the outfield, doesn't it? And yet despite having one of the weakest hitting outfields in team history, that team won 94 games..

No you're just clouding the waters. Might was well say taking a shot of cortisone to heal pain is a PED. There is a big difference between using nicotine and stanislozol. And that difference is one of them is breaking the rules. And these rules were not in place until 1991...

That's not "revisting the history" when you use 10 year old articles and don't look at the more recent ones, is it? https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/commissioner-david-ortizs-positive-ped-test-in-03-may-not-have-been-reliable/ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qky9ew/mlb-commissioner-gives-david-ortiz-a-pass-on-failed-ped-test-from-2003

It is very possible. It's also possible if JD opts out, the Sox resign him, possibly at a lower AAV but for 4+ years. (Really, what other teams will be looking at him for a better deal?) If that happens, any trade of Betts is completely up in the air. But if Betts isn' traded, it does mean JBJ is likely traded or, more likely, non-tendered. However, like JDM, it is possible Bradley is re-signed at a lower salary than anticipated in arbitration (which is in the $10-12mill range)...

So you'd rather have JBJ than Martinez or Betts? JDM and Betts are the type of players you build a championship lineup around. Bradley is the type of player you build around a Martinez or Betts with. If JD opts out and the Sox trade Betts, there is really no reason to keep Bradley. If the Sox trade Betts and lose JD, Rusney Castillo actually makes more sense for the Sox outfield than Bradley...

Papi failed a drug test? You might consider revisiting the history on that one...

Maybe Brannen will be out of A ball by then...

That is 100% dependent on the people involved. The Sox did have a small committee before when Epstein walked out, and there was none of that. In fact, they pulled off one of the most important trades for the 2007 World Series title...

No one wants to return to the team/company/organization/whatever that fired them in a lower capacity. No one...

He’s using the age-old trick “Draft the kids of stars.” Such an obvious move, yet so few teams try it with such frequency...

I’ve been saying that for 2 years...

While trading Betts reduces the chances, I don't think it;s necessarily a white flag. Depends on what comes back and what other moves are made....

Rizzo is in the last two years of his deal, both of which are team options. Both are $16.5 mill with $2mill buyouts. Only gets on more year of a player, although it would lower payroll. Not sure the Cubs would be on board...

Yes, if Hamels was still any good. A package from the Phillies would be something like RHP Adonis Medina (AA) and INF/OF Scott Kingery...

I don’t see the Sox getting multiple topflight prospects or controllable Major Leaguers for Betts, at least not more than two. My hope is if they trade him, the Phillies seem to be the best matchupfor prospects. The Braves and Dodgers are both stacked as well, but it’s hard to say if either will be interested, although both should be...

One year of Betts is not going to return anything equal to Betts in a trade. But a reset at least brings him back into play for 2021. Per Sam Kennedy, “getting under [the first limit] is a goal, but not a mandate.” This does mean that one of Betts or Martinez is likely gone. Of course, the Sox might have no say in Martinez...

Good question. My thinking is you get more for Betts, ad if the goal is to reset, it becomes easier without Betts. They could easily reverse those two. But the market for JD will certainly be more limited...

I believe next year, rosters expand to 26 players. This means the 8 man bullpen will be all but standard. Some teams might even have 9 relievers. Upshot: having a single 200 IP SP will become a rarity. A team with three 200 IP starting pitchers will be harder to find than Sasquatch...