notin

Well, some of that improvement in ERA could be attributable to the additions of Price, Kimbrel and Sale, too...

It certainly is a big part, although I am hesitant to say 80%.

Missing the relevance here? If anything, Middlebrooks is the cautionary tale. He was a fan favorite right out of the gate, but turned into a massive flop rather quickly. (But at least Devers doesn't have Middlebrooks' noticeable poor strike zone judgement. They are not the same player at the plate.) Regardless, that Sandoval and Middlebrooks were not good players doesn't make Devers a better defender. If anything, he looks like a hitter who is given defensive pass because of his bat, while other players who excel at their positions are crucified because of their bats. Defense is about the glove and the arm and using them to make plays. To date, that has not been Devers forte. On the bright side, even if he does move off third, he will still be a bat in the middle of the Sox lineup for 5 more years...

The only reason I liked the Price contract at all was because of the opt out clause, which, when you look at what Grienke got at his age, looked like a distinct possibility to be exercised. But given how Price has pitched since coming to Boston, both in terms of quality and frequency, and coupled with last year's free agent salaries, it looks all but assured Price will be in Boston for the full contract. Maybe at some point Price gets traded, but even then a huge chunk of that contract is still staying in Boston. Or an equally ugly one coming back in return. Or both...

The only reason to play Swihart anywhere at this point is to hope he hits well enough to be a marketable trade piece capable of getting a better return than what was already turned down for him this spring, whatever that was. But as long as the Sox are atop the AL East with one of the best records in baseball, it is not likely Swihart gets that type of chance...

Even if that was the best solution - which i doubt, as I'd rather have Bradley in CF than Nunez at 3B - Pedroia is still without a return date and there could be a lot of baseball between now and when that scenario is even possible...

Offense is more fun to watch and more easily understandable. Defense, especially in this "post-Fielding percentage and errors" era, is much tougher to quantify and harder to relate directly to wins. That doesn't mean defense is less important.

That logic turns in to "Let's sell low on Bradley." For a team with a few tradeable commodities as the Sox, that is a bad idea...

The general theme here is - if you can hit, you don't need to field your position well. But, according to the Vazquez and Bradley threads, if you can field your position extremely well, you still better hit. Players spend much more time in the field manning their positions and many make more plays than they get plate appearances. Yet fans seem to like having these defensive positions need to be governed by offensive output alone? Devers is not good at third. He might get better, but that doesn't mean he will ever be good. Really, first base or DH is probably in his future. (Maybe the Bradley detractors would not mind seeing Devers to DH and JD to LF, Benitendi to CF and Bradley to the bench? Not sure who mans third in that scenario. Maybe the Sox will just have to pitch everyone away...)

Is Swihart and his inferior defense and his career .696 OPS really the answer? And I know he has only had a few at bats spread out over some injury-plagued seasons, but it's not like his minor league OPS (.727 across 7 seasons) was all that much better.

The Red Sox are second in the majors in runs scored, 7th in the majors in fewest runs allowed, and have a 22-9 record overall, good for best in MLB. And people are complaining about he offensive output of two stellar defensive players who bat eighth and ninth. This team could be 31-0 right now, and somehow someone would find a reason to complain. "They're making 24 to 27 outs every game!!! They won't be able to do that in the post-season!!!"

Bradley is struggling big time with the strike zone. His graphs of OPS vs O-Swing (percentage of pitches swung at out of the zone) show a severe correlation. While one would expect any player's OPS to drop precipitously if they swung at too many bad pitches, the point is - Bradley i actually proving that. https://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=12984&statArr=39,102&legend=1,2&split=base&time=season&ymin=&ymax=&dStatArray=

Price is definitely not throwing as hard as he did in 2015, but right now he is consistent with how he has thrown since coming to Boston. He does have a tendency to throw harder as the season progresses.. https://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=3184&position=P&statArr=&legend=1&split=base&time=daily&start=2015&end=2018&rtype=mult&gt1=15&dStatArray=SI&ymin=&ymax=

Why is everyone so down on Bradley because of his hitting, but there is no equal time for Christian Vazquez, who is hitting much worse than Bradley?

Fred Lynn Mike Lowell

Is Mantle even the best Yankee centerfielder of all time?

Porcello had a terrific second half, once he came off the DL in 2015. But even having trade chips doesn't mean the player you want is readily available. Especially from a team taht should have been as good as the White Sox. The Yankees have plenty of trade chips today, but that doesn't automatically mean Michael Fulmer is going to end up there. (And Fulmer is a guy who should be traded from that awful Detroit team.)

Do we even have any outfielders in AA who anyone would consider a prospect? Danny Mars needs to learn to hit AA pitching. Maybe Cole Sturgeon, who is off to a great start. But even Sturgeon, who turns 27 in September, is hardly prospect material and might be lucky to be a fourth outfielder in MLB...

While true, that also involves knowing: 1. Porcello would emerge as a Cy Young-caliber pitcher. While I always liked Porcello, his 2016 was completely unforeseen by anyone except maybe his mom. 2. Chris Sale would become available. There was really no reason for the White Sox to blow up what was actually a good team, with Sale being the centerpiece in terms of not only talent but also trade value. Rick Hahn did a great job identifying and locking up premier talents like Sale, Quintana and Eaton to insanely affordable deals that, coupled with players like Abreu, Robertson, and a few other notables, formed a cheap nucleus that was already controlled affordably long-term. I have always suspected Sale's public tantrums prior to the 2017 season lead to an availability that never should have been there. I can easily believe Price was going to be attainable, given how high Dombrowski was clearly willing to go to get him. But without the emergence of Porcello and the sudden unexpected availability of Sale, was the plan to rely solely on Price to upgrade the starting pitching?

I think you're both right here. Castillo's salary would have very serious luxury tax implications, and Dombrowski went to the see Castillo's audition and reportedly left with the impression Rusney was a fourth outfielder. I see Castillo as a better version of Jarrod Dyson. Dyson received a 2 yr $7.5mill contract this past off-season. Castillo is owed $23mill for the same two seasons, and assuming he doesn't opt out after 2019 (an extremely slim chance), another $14mill for 2020. So he will likely get $30mill more than Dyson with only one season more of control. He might be better than Dyson, but not THAT much better...

Johnny Mize remains the only player in MLB history to hit 50 home runs and strike out less than 50 times in the same season (1947, 51 HRs, 42K). With 11HRs and 13 strike outs through 30 games, Betts is on pace to come close. Not that I care if he strikes out 70 times...

I doubt any combination of Margot, Asuaje, Allen of Guerra was going to replace Moncada, who was the clear headliner in that trade. My biggest gripe was the Sox gave up an awful lot to get a closer, when we were a last place team with much bigger needs...

Cities/Towns in Massachusetts Tim Wakefield Daryl Boston Jon Leicester (not the same pitcher as Jon Lester, but he counts, too) Amos Otis

It is true it did more to prove you can't just simply fill your bullpen with retreads and pitchers who failed to make the rotation. You do need good pitchers in the bullpenand as many as possible. These guys are going to pitch close to 40% of the IP over the season. Closers were popular among managers because they reduced doubt and made for easy press conferences, and popular with GMs because they were relatively cheap compared to starters. But last off-season, Wade Davis signed a contract worth almost 80% annually of what Darvish and Arrieta were making. The dedicated closer is moving rapidly into luxury, and it never really was a necessity. Ideally, I'd rather see a "high leverage" guy who comes in and puts out a key fire in the seventh and eighth. However, if that specialty ever caught on, it too would become very overpriced. But over the course of a season it should lead to more wins. To me, there is nothing sillier than watching the lesser arms struggle with the top and/or heart of the order in the seventh and eighth innings, hoping they can get through so the Sox can get to the closer. I'd rather see him in there when i find myself hoping on the setup guys too much...

And this is always the type of things people say in defense of closers. Not wanTing a closer doesn't mean avoiding pitchers like Kimbrel and Rivera. It means not using thsn add ninth inning specialIsts. If Rivera was in the Yankee pen all those years but somEone else was getting saves, how fewer rings would he have?