notin

The fact remains one player on the 40 man roster DEFINITELY has to go somewhere. And unless Dombrowski reset the luxury tax in order to achieve a status quo roster, two players definitely have to go somewhere. Trades coul happen but are unlikely. They can take too long and, really what are the Sox going to get for Holt at this point? The goal of trading is to improve the team or organization. Is keeping Brentz over Holt going to accomplish that? If Brentz is so much better, isn't he a better trade candidate? Also not sure why people think Brentz, a DFA candidate with no options, has any trade value to Oakland, who has the first waiver claim

No need to set any sort of timetable. If he's ready in July, he comes back in July. If he's ready in May, he comes back in May. If he isn't ready until September, he comes back in September. ...

Chavis can barely handle 3B and you want to move him to a position that requires more mobility? Dombrowski did buy Pedroia more recovery time this week by signing Nunez, so this is no longer the issue it has been all off-season...

Apparently Abad signed a minor league deal with the Phillies. That explains why Dombrowski didn't bring him back. DD doesn't do minor league deals...

Is that an actual problem or just your theory?

He wasn't on the Sox last year. Dombrowski is only re - signing players ay this time. I bet he is calling Fernando Abad's agent right now..

Blaming Farrell for two early playoff exits is silly. Both teams went on to the World Series, and the one that didn't win it all lost in extra innings in game 7. Is Farrell also at fault for the ALCS successes from Cleveland and Houston? And their world series wins? The Sox ran into teams playing better.

His first half OPS for his career - .771 His second half OPS for his career - .721 So he has hit better in the first half, but not substantially better. A lot of it could be he is simply healthier in the first halves of seasons....

Even if he was just 27, it does seem to greatly reduce his chances. And it's not like they tried to convert him to a pitcher because his hitting was already perfect. Chances are that move was made because they had more faith in his arm than his bat....

After some mild research, the best rookie to start his career at age 29 or later (not counting Negro League or players who played in foreign leagues such as Japan and Cuba) was George Watkins. In his age 30 season, Watkins came up for the Cardinals and hit .373/.415/.621 for an OPS of 1.036. He did only hit 17 home runs, which would be his career high. Watkins played for 7 seasons in the majors. But he also did not start his minor league career until age 25 for reasons I don't know. So he never managed the 21HR estimate for Brentz. How rare is it? Watkins debuted in 1930. 88 years ago, when bosoxmal was in first grade...

But he was in the majors for years before that, playing 130 games for the Twins at age 24...

I would bet well under that total. He only exceeded 21 HRs in the minors one time above A ball. And that was in his sixth season in AAA...

I said his chances were only slightly better. I'm at a flat 0%. He's around 1%, plus or minus. So we're close...

I can't think of any. Evan Gattis and Josh Hamilton debuted at age 26 and both went on to hit many home runs. But both also missed minor league time to spend some time in drug rehabs...

Even Daubach was younger and never hit that many home runs...

He might not be grabbed so quickly, since he has no options left. He will possibly et a minor league deal, but considering there are still better outfielders on the market, it might not be as quick as you think. I'd also bet against him as a productive hitter, outside of maybe a little BABIP-fueled hot streak, which will be followed by prolonged unproductivity... (Is that a word?)

Bear in mind Brentz and Barfield have a skill of hitting minor league pitching out of the park. And both of them took a long time to develop that skill. The jump to MLB is much more difficult, and if they take as long to learn to hit MLB pitching as both did to learn to hit AAA pitching (a skill Barfield still doesn't have), both will be in their mid-30's. These are two ships that have sailed. Barfield might be invited to camp, but his chances of making the team are not much better than mine...

Elias might be one guy. But OTOH, maybe the feeling is we need LHRP. At the very least, pitching is one area where there is no such thing as too much depth. Trades are possible, but the easiest way to get room is simply DFA someone...

And he was fun as hell last year...

My point exactly...

Well, yes and no. If they are the best options (which they are not; Chavis is.) They might get a shot. But someone has to go to make room for Nunez. Probably Marrero. If the Sox ign Martinez or LoMo, someone else hasto go. Barfield won't be the guy, since he isn't on the 40-man. But Brentz is a strong candidate. At which point his power is irrelevant. If you think they need Brentz, who else do you think should go? Bear in mind, options are an important part of it, since Brentz is either in Boston or gone. The same thing cannot be said about Holt or Hernandez or Lin or many of the pitchers on the 40-man. And since Barfield isn't on the 40-man roster, who do you think should go to accommodate him when he is needed?

I think there is a tendency for fans to insert themselves into these situations too many times and feel they know the answers or need to. There is an entire thread about the Price/Eck incident which was simply two grown men having a disagreement on a plane, something that might happen on 50% of all MLB flights for all we know. Yet somehow a large contingency felt this was a big newsworthy deal and we needed answers and public apologies, etc. And needed them NOW!! On the first page of that thread, you had a post that said "Just let it go. Man, this town is tough. Everyone and everything is under a million microscopes." One of the more accurate assessments of that incident...

Or maybe they saw him assuming the role he has had since he told Valentine to f*** off, and they aren't letting this one little incident mar that image? Or maybe they simply agree with him outright anyway? We have nothing but conjecture about how anyone feels about him and his leadership skills, so one time when people see something they can question, they assume the answers and proclaim him unfit. So again, would you base his hitting one on at-bat? does sample size apply? If you like magnitude, we can go that way to. If I asked you who was the best reliever you ever saw, who would you say? If I then asked you who was the only reliever in MLB history to blow a two run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the World Series and lose the game, who would you say? Would you agree this was a singular incident yet one with a lot of magnitude? Does it make you change your answer to the first question? My guess is you would name the same relief pitchers both times, assuming you think Mariano Rivera is the answer to the first question. (He is the answer to the second one.)

I'm sure there is a lot more to all of this than any of us know. If you were evaluating Pedroia as a hitter and he struck out in his first at-bat, would you think "Not MLB material"? If you watched him as a fielder and he booted his first ground ball, would you give up on him thinking "why is this guy even playing?" People are judging his leadership abilities based on one incident, which may or may not even be taken correctly. At what point do the same sample size arguments come in to other criteria? He's been with this team for 11 seasons. Is this the only sample we have? Do we hold leadership and personality to such high criteria that anything that can be taken as poor is more than enough to discredit his abilities and role with the team?

It doesn't have to be a good thing. It can also be completely irrelevant. The 1978-79 Yankees were reportedly a very dysfunctional bunch yet managed to win two World Series. How important is all this stuff?