notin

True. Feltman should be in AA. He’s also not on the 40 man roster like the other three. Bullpen is the obvious highest priority. Catcher is just another possibility, although it’s nowhere near as likely. It’s the one position where neither upgrading nor standing pat would surprise me. MLBTR did an article on how each team has handled their weakest position from last year. Boston’s weakest was catcher. It certainly doesn’t mean any change is imminent, but I think that catcher isn’t necessarily going to remain status quo, either. Hernandez might be a solid bullpen core piece, but if the Sox are going to make any trades, you have to think he is one of the more desirable pieces to acquire for other teams. Feltman might be as well. And the Sox will have to give up something if they want to make a trade...

I can see that. But it’s not like the players are unaware of the reset (we are, safe assumption they are as well) and the Yankees will certainly up their spending this off-season, presumably getting closer to a 40% spending...

So is the point that the Yankees showed some restraint here?

It’s possible they were only focusing on players slated to be in AAA. That could be a mere coincidence but it certainly applies here. But I would think Hernandez should be more likely than Sharwyn, simply because he is actually on the 40-man roster. While probably not considered, it is also possible Hernandez is traded this off-season. He certainly gained some notoriety in the AFL that puts him on the radar of other GMs over most of the Sox farm. If DD is going to plug holes and maintain the budget estimates, he’s going to need tradable pieces. Chavis and Dalbec are certainly tradable. And Hernandez might be another trade candidate for a package to get a reliever or, if DD so inclines, an upgrade at catcher...

I have mixed emotions on that subject. I don’t want to see them get better. But I really don’t want to see them get Betts...

Kimbrel’s second half numbers actually weren’t much different than the second half numbers of 0.0 bWAR closers like Cody Allen and Bud Norris. The Sox might have had a worse record with either of these two (both of whom also appear more likely than Kimbrel to be the Sox closer in 2019), but certainly not worse enough to finish behind New York. While the”what if” game is impossible to prove, we’re talking about an eight game difference here. That’s a lot, especially in an era where closers rarely if ever handle tough saves. But then if the Sox didn’t have Kimbrel, the closer probably would not have been a 0.0 bWAR reliever. The worst case scenario is probably Barnes as closer, and right now by virtue of being here, he’s the front runner for that role, at least until some other deal happens. So if Barnes was closing instead of Kimbrel, how much worse would the Sox have really been? I think that question rests more on who had to replace Barnes in the bullpen. Which might be the plan for 2019...

At this point, negotiations with Sale and Bogaerts are not likely to do much except maybe pay them the contracts they would earn in free agency anyway. Bogaerts is a Boras client, and Boras famously disagrees with his clientele signing “team friendly” extensions. Either could be signed, but the Sox have very little in the way of leverage to negotiate from, what with both players one year away from free agency. They are in a better position with Betts, but Mookie reportedly has turned down extensions in the past when they made more sense for him. Any extension for Betts would be enormous and basically be the same deal he’d get as a free agent. The Sox will certainly be in a better position to re-sign Betts if the Yankees sign Machado and the Dodgers sign Harper, since both notorious high spenders will have less budget to work with. The less competition the better...

It was an extremely predictable outcome and unnecessary at the time...

I was not wrong in thinking that he has been declining at an exponential rate since that extension started, regardless of the date ink was put on paper...

Ok. Now in her defense and I was thinking along the same lines - while Cabrera signed that extension in2014, he still had two years of control left at the time and the extension did not actually start until 2016, which might end up being the last good season of his career. So can we agree that for the next 5 years Miguel Cabrera will be a really awful contract? Something that appears to have started 2 years ago. It’s Detroit, so, you know, who cares?

A lot of teams handle that by backloading the money on the extension, making it easier to put an actual team around the player during his potential best seasons The downside to that strategy is the player gets more expensive while declining and becomes virtually untradable in the latter years...

Betts absolutely needs to be retained. I agree it’s a bit early to say even best since Williams. I hear that Yastrzemski fellow was quite good. But Betts is a stud and has the misfortune to be playing at the same time as Mike Trout...

I do see that. But I keep seeing contract details saying it covers 2016-2022 or whatever. Either way, like with most contracts, the early years are not the problem ones. Right now Cabrera has FIVE YEARS and $154mill left on a deal. He is 35 years old and signed through age 40 and has back problems that limited him to 40 games last year and he isn’t going to simply recover here. If you asked any GM in baseball two years ago if they would trade for that contract, you would have gotten 29 “Nooooo!”’s. And I do feel confident in speaking for them. Cabrera is a lock for Cooperstown like few others playing today. But that I contract is a horror for Detroit...

I think Kimmi was also referring to the 2016 extension...

There is also an extremely vast grey area in between those two. And you can dismiss what Mark Wohlers says, but that seems odd because at one point you actually said closing did require a special mentality and if you asked any players they would agree. Here I went and provided the opinion of a player and you dismiss it because what was it? He wasn’t a good enough closer for you? I get why you’re dropping the topic...

You’re kidding, right? Kimbrel was not good in the second half at all and much worse In the postseason. You must have noticed that. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we won in spite of Kimbrel. But yes that performance after the All Star break and straight thru October was absolutely replaceable...

Saves are also a function of opportunity. Greg Holland has 41 saves in 2017. He’s a free agent now. Do you think the Sox should get him? Fernando Rodney had 39 saves in 2017. Is he a good closer?

. Not really true. She’s referring to the extension he signed in 2016, so he’s only three years in. While his OPS was close at .854, he’s also missed a full season worth of games and is signed for 5 more years until he’s 40 and paid roughly $30mill per season... With options. It’s a horrible contract...

No one suggested he would (despite that he did so 11 months ago)...

So are you saying that every time you posted a criticism of Alex Cora on the 100 plus page thread, you were doing so because you wanted to bring attention to John Farrell? Or can we all just acknowledge that criticizing DD is completely independent of Cherington?

So if anyone questions Dombrowski, it can only be as an homage to Cherington? There was a 100 page thread questioning various decisions by Alex Cora. (Did you participate on it?) Do you also think this thread was only created to promote the memory of John Farrell?

With only minor modifications, you can say all of that about kickers in the NFL. Yet I bet you never once got excited when the Patriots (or whoever you root for) signed or drafted a kicker...

No. Closers are very much overrated. And the notion that not having the best closer means every save opportunity equals a loss is not really true either. Once when asked the difference between a good closet and a bad one, former Braves’ closer Mark Wohlers said “three blown saves.” I know this sounds huge and a lot of divisions are won by less, but then not all blown saves are losses. And while having a better player there can reduce the occasional loss, that can be said about every position on the team. I don’t see anyone complaining that the Sox refuse to upgrade over Vazquez. Yasmani Grandal is a very good defensive catcher (despite a rough postseason) with 30 HR power. Would the Sox be better or worse with him? The answer is often “Vazquez is good enough.” So settling at the position most important on the field is OK, but with closers it’s “hey we need an elite pitcher out there!!! We’re going to lose EVERY CLOSE GAME!!” Or my favorite “ every World Series Champion has an elite closer!!” First - not true. Second - every World SeriesChampion also has a batboy. Do we need to worry there too? I’m not saying anyone can close. But the notion that the ninth inning needs more attention than other innings is silly. Get good relievers. Use them as leverage indicates. Let the saves fall with whoever gets them...

I can acknowledge that. Maybe some other team was hit on Kimbrel ( although DD’s big price tag did ensure the Padres would keep in touch). But it always seemed crazy to go after the closer first. Especially from a guy historically known for plugging anyone into the role. Go for an ace while you still have all your chips. Even if he was married to Price (whom he had traded for before and probably knew), he had to know that contract had the potential to be catastrophic. Of course it is also possible he only went after Kimbrel to alleviate fears for his poor bullpen reputation with the biggest name possible...

I It helps that he’s over them. So why did he go for a closer before signing /trading for an ace? Certainly Kimbrel wasn’t going anywhere and the Padres weren’t topping that offer...