notin

Campbell had a .963 OPS in Worcester. Bring him back. Even a struggling Campbell is an upgrade over Hamilton

As much as many gripe about Cora giving starters “rest days” and scheduled days off, those days are more about getting playing time for the bench…

I see you’re still putting words in Cora’s mouth, largely because it fits your theory. Of course, Cora might not actually agree with it.

And if it takes you out for a few hours, I’m happy too…

“Get out, you b@st@rd!!” Those 4?

Livvy Dunne. Gymnast, not ballerina. Also she irritates my daughter, but it’s probably not on her resume…

No one really knows what Cora thought of the idea. All we know is he was afraid/unwilling to bring it up with Devers. Cora did, however, say he planned to have that discussion with Devers in the future, strongly suggesting he was not really all that opposed to the idea…

Go back to the Yankee board and count “Aaron Boone Sux” threads until you fall asleep…

1. I think the Sox bat boys are actual bats. 2. Actually outside of Toy Cannon Winn, that roster might be its contemporary equal to this Sox roster. Rusty Staub carved out a great career as a PH/DH, but who are his current day equivalents? And while Nellie Fox was a 6-8 bWAR MVP in his prime, he was not on his prime while he was in Houston…

That makes sense, especially since those jurisdictions cross multiple countries. Perfect addition to this post. Thanks…

So for the past two weeks, there’s been this Conspiracy Theory floating around the Internet that the Sox dealt Devers so that Liverpool FC could afford to sign 22yo German superstar footballer Florian Wirtz. How else could they afford Wirtz? Some have even said. Im no expert on Euro football leagues, but even I know this is, as Colonel Potter would say, horse hockey. Wirtz did sign a 150million euro deal with Liverpool, but it’s not a one year deal. His AAV on this contract is roughly $15million USD. You that places him about halfway between Jordan Hicks and Masataka Yoshida among Red Sox AAV’s. Couple that with the fact that Liverpool FC is valued at roughly $5.4 billion USD, almost a full billion dollars more than the Red Sox, and this whole theory is based on the premise that the more lucrative club cannot afford the cheaper player. And with an annual revenue of roughly $773million USD, Liverpool is the more lucrative club, and was even before adding Wirtz. So why does this exist? Probably because if you replace Wirtz’ name with “No, No, Nannette”, you get a story many Sox fans can understand. Just another greedy owner defunding our passions to feed his other interests. The Red Sox are just seed money to these guys. John Henry is the reincarnation of Harry Frazee and we’re into another 86 year title drought. Henry certainly has a few things in common with Frazee - breaking up great Red Sox teams, for one. Ruth wasn’t the only player he sold to the Yankees. He also sold the should-be Hall of Famer Carl Mays, actual Hall of Famer Herb Pennock, several other pitchers on the ‘27 team (including spectacularly nicknamed Bullet Joe Bush and Sad Sam Jones) and even the mortgage to Fenway Park. And like Henry is now, Frazee is part of a financial conspiracy theory about the sale of a Sox great. Frazee didnt sell Ruth to the Yankees to finance “No, No, Nanette.” That story is, as Colonel Potter would say, buffalo bagels. Frazee did produce a number of plays over his career. And he also owned theaters and theatrical companies. But he absolutely didnt sell Babe Ruth in 1919 to finance a play that had not even been written yet. “No, No, Nanette” didnt even exist before 1924 and Frazee didnt get involved until 1925, some six years after the sale of Babe Ruth. So why the legend? Because we like to blame wealthy ownership. Thats why. Don’ylt get me wrong; ownership makes bad decisions all the time. They’re far from innocent victims. But with certain star players, Sox fans gravitate towards these theories that ownership simply cares about everything else over the one form of entertainment we enjoy most. I can’t speak for Frazee’s finances in 1919, and he is ghosting all my texts. But clearly something had him strapped for cash. That he sold half a dozen other players as well as Fenway says as much. Nanette likely gets the blame because, unlike most of his theater projects, it was a huge hit. So rather than Frazee having money trouble, sending off Ruth (and only Ruth) to produce a box office smash just re-enforces where the Sox stood in his list of priorities. And just like we have this whole myth about greedy Frazee ruining the Sox to appease theater snobs , we now have this new myth about Henry ruining the Sox to appease European Football lunatics. And while dealing Devers is a huge blow to this team, he certainly wasn’t sent to San Fran along with his contract just so to make Liverpool fans happy. I don’t know how Henry runs FSG. Does he even merge his resources from different assets? No idea. But Devers was dealt because of Devers. And any story connecting him to Florian Wirtz is, as Colonel Potter would say, mule muffins…

Most definitely not. I bet the only thing both have in common are 1) being incredibly wealthy and 2) you don’t like either one. Jones approved a $60mill AAV for Dak Prescott, a middling QB. Henry (or his team) trades people away for making half of that.

Depends on the contract. He’s a 4-5 fWAR player but at 31, that’s not likely to last long…

I think you mean me. I’ve been calling Devers names. I think he earned them. I have also never said Devers Forevers until this post…

Whether or not it was a difficult conversation is absolutely not an excuse to bypass it. In fact, it’s a reason not to…

Even if their biggest problem is pitching, that’s not a reason to not fix lesser (yet still significant) problems earlier if the opportunity arises…

That some guy can use Twitter/X?

Best of luck in the recovery. Hopefully that is the end of that chapter for you…

When asked about third base, he foisted that promise off on Bloom. He absolved Devers’ play at third from the whole equation. He did get Devers to (begrudgingly?) accept DH. But that Devers was clearly reluctant with one move (that no one told him he was responsible for) very likely factored into his blatant reluctance for a second move, despite the second move resulting from an injury. Let’s not ignore that huge factor…

Ignore my previous response. I thought I was responding to another post. I think he should have tried the straight up honest approach. “That was two years ago, and in that time you simply didn’t improve your defense. I think it’s best for the team if you try (first base? DH? Both?).” Maybe not so soft. But let him know third base is not working out…

Huh? I never said the CBO worked with the manager that way. In fact, we know they do work together, although they don’t always agree. Devers absolutely was a whiny bitch. Who else, when asked to replace AN INJURED TEAMMATE says “do they expect me to play everywhere?” and “it’s [Breslow’s] job to go get a 1b.” I cannot think of how those responses can be construed any other way. Even you admit Devers was raised to be a power-thumping man-child. He certainly has supported you there. But that has NOTHING to do with whether or not Cora was working with Bloom and Breslow in some capacity to make the roster out…

And I was just talking about ownership conspiracy theories on another thread. Thank you for this well-timed comment…

Well, Zack Scott spilled the beans on the Mookie deal, which started well before Bloom was on board. But he didn’t name any names, just that the Sox had a self-imposed limit and had never done a deferred deal. We do know Henry had to go to KC for the Devers fiasco, but we don’t know the results of that specific meeting. Did he tell Breslow to just unload him? Did he yell at Cora to handle this kind of thing himself? Henry gets pretty cranky when you interrupt his Scrooge McDuck money baths…

That was my biggest question - why then? That nonsensical tweet about Breslow doing it out west to avoid the media was clearly written by someone who still thinks it’s 1978. According to a few journalists, the Sox did have multiple offers. So either Devers forced their hand or there was a ticking clock on SF taking the whole contract. Both do make sense. Of course that doesnt make either one right…

Based on what? I think he used to be, but in truth, I’m basing that on how Arliss Howard portrayed him in “Moneyball”. But you’re becoming a true diehard Sox fan if you embrace ownership conspiracy theories…