S5Dewey

I've been preaching this same thing all year. It may be the only thing you and I agree on.

To begin with, Gaietti had a bWAR of 42.0 over 22 seasons while Rivera had a bWAR of 56.6 over 19 seasons. Or maybe it just points out how absolutely ridiculous it is to use WAR as a reference when one source's calculation of WAR is almost 1.5X the other. If someone thinks that the much traded Gaetti was as valuable to the teams he played for as Rivera was to the Yankees there's not much I can say.

OMG. Have you gone blind?? IMO this is more a condemnation of fWAR than it is of fans overvaluing the role of closer.

Yes, and these GM's are called "Losers". Eight of the ten playoff teams had a closer that finished in the top ten of closers. On the local front, the Sox were 22-19 in one-run games and won the division by 2 games. IMHO anyone who thinks that the Sox would have won their division without an outstanding closer isn't being realistic.

DD could trade Kimbrel for some top prospects and avoid that cliff some are worried about. Of course, in the process he might be closing our window. 35 saves isn't to be sneezed at.

What's happening to the Red Sox right now is exactly what MLB wants to have happen. The MLB is trying to establish parity - that the traditionally weaker teams will begin to have a chance to win more games and have more chances to make the playoffs, packing more fannies into the seats. While that may not be good for the fans of the Yankees or the Red Sox it's good for baseball. MLB is trying to create a cycle where teams go from being very good to not being very good, and it's being successful. They (MLB) tried to do it by financially penalizing teams for FA acquistions. That didn't work because some teams saw the LT penalty as just more of the price of salaries. Now MLB is also going to limit draft picks and international signing for successful teams. Given all that MLB is doing to thwart DD's plans I find it hard to blame DD for trying to put together a team that has a legitimate chance to win it all within a window and then spend a couple of years rebuilding. It's the wave of the future and we can try to win one now while we can or we can resign ourselves to mediocrity while other teams are catching up.

The cliff is not inevitable. It's possible, some can even have the opinion that it's probable, but it is not inevitable.

Meh. Here's the way I see the "cliff" argument. Before I agree there is a cliff I want it defined. Is the cliff going to be as some posters are implying, that the sky will be falling and we'll have several consecutive years of finishing last in the division? Or is it that we'll have a 2-3 consecutive years of being middle-of-the-pack? It's always been my opinion that one reason for the 84 year drought was because the team ("team" can be defined as FO and/or fans) were complacent with being often the bridesmaid but never the bride. The call of "Wait until next year" came about because many times the Sox were almost - but not quite - good enough to win their division. There was always hope for "Next Year". Then MLB expanded the playoffs to include WC teams and the landscape changed. Suddenly Almost Good Enough became Good Enough. And the Sox capitalized on it. Barring boneheaded moves like trading away the entire pitching staff I don't see the Sox ever finishing last for consecutive years again but I can see them "reloading" while missing the playoffs for a couple of years after being true contenders, and I'm good with that. Not crazy about it, but good with it. But what do I know? I'm just one of those crazy imports from BDC whom some poster(s?) would prefer just fade off into the darkness anyway.

Yep again.

Yep

But are you preparing to have your son's name legally changed?

Speaking of the Braves of the '90's I saw Joe Buck interviewing John Smoltz on television recently. Buck is doing a series of interviews called "Undeniable with Joe Buck" on AUDHD Ch. 239 (on DirecTV) with different sports personalities and I've found all of them spellbinding. If you've got a little time to kill in the evenings IMO they're very worth watching. I've never been a fan of Buck as an announcer but IMO he's a great interviewer.

...which is why I'm seldom posting now. Unfortunately this is the direction the country has taken in the past couple of years with pettiness, character assassination, backbiting and the charge of "fake news" becoming the norm. There seems to have become less room in people's lives for civil discourse and an honest respect for one another's opinions. JMO.

I hear you, but at the same time in today's game many of the power hitters strike out a lot... and I think most of us agree that this team needs a power hitter or three. Having a high K rate may be the price one has to pay for having a hitter who finds the seats 30+ times a year.

?? I'm assuming that the word that was left out of this post was "hitting", as in 'a left handed hitting second baseman'. ??

One good thing about a guy who strikes out a lot is that they don't hit into a lot of DP's. They're too busy striking out. Take these for example: GIDP's per 100 AB's in 2017: (>400 AB's) H. Ramierez.....3.0 Bogaerts.........3.0 Benintendi.......2.8 Betts...............2.8 Pedroia............2.4 Vazquez...........2.2 JBJ..................1.76 Duda...............1.75 In that scenario there are worse things than a K. Even the much maligned Mike Napoli who was drawn and quartered here for his K's grounded into a DP 2.6 % of the time.

I have to keep reminding myself that the fact that nothing has happened doesn't mean that nothing is happening. I do believe that DD is working daily to find the best fit for the Sox, it's just that nothing has been finalized yet.

What injury are we talking about here? The shoulder from last May? Is that still an issue?

Nice post. It expresses my feelings toward Lin perfectly. I see him as someone who can come off the bench and not hurt the team defensively as well as being respectable at the plate. However, he's not the solution as a starter, even for half a year.

I keep telling myself that the post-surgery Hanley may be as good as the 2016 version, and it might be. However, the 'rub' comes in the fact that we won't know until ST has started and by that time all the guys we'd want to sign will be signed someplace else and we'll be stuck with another Mich Moreland. I have no problem with Moreland, he's just not what we need.

Not a bad idea. At least if Machado is playing for the Red Sox he's not putting Red Sox players on the DL and/or shortening their careers. It'll be players on other teams. JUST SAY NO to Manny Machado.

The rumor in this part of the state is that Butterfield was offered a contract but turned it down, wanting Cora to have a chance to have all of his own new people there.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Leon get traded. He's a solid defensive catcher and there's always room for one of those, especially one who's shown flashes of offensive brilliance. After all, we have a CF who fits that profile - ok, a little better than "solid" at his position, but still... those flashes of brilliance give hope. Leon will never be the centerpiece of a trade but as 176 says, he adds a lot of value as part of a trade. I also think we've been underestimating Swihart as a catcher. He's not Vaz behind the plate but that's ok as a backup. Plus he's cheap.

I've always been a fan of Bryce Brentz. I see him as Brandon Moss lite. Too good to be called a AAAA player, not good enough to be a ML starter, but with potential to be an offensive contributor in a limited defensive role. I'd be reluctant to part with him unless someone demanded him as a part of a bigger trade. He's getting a little long in the tooth to land a big contract @ 28 years old but I can see him as being cheap bench strength.

Probably you're right in a perfect world where everyone sees every other player and then ranks/rates them according to what they see. However, I don't need to see every game in baseball to know that a certain player "sucks' or that another one is outstanding. I've seen enough baseball so I know the difference. IMHO we sometimes get too wrapped around the axle with terminology. In the real world there is only one "average" SS in baseball, or at least that's what WAR would tell us. If I'm going to say someone is worse than average at SS what I mean is that I've seen a lot of SS play the game and my eyes tell me that given a decent sample size (a half dozen games?) I can say that this guy is worse than most. Surprisingly my eyes usually agree with the stats. If i say he's average then I mean he's "meh". He may be slightly better or worse than the statistical average, but on the whole he's "meh". I will confess for the benefit of the stat geeks that I don't have perfectly defined cutoffs between "sucks", "meh", and "outstanding". It's like pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.