S5Dewey

I've said it before and I'll say it now. People who think clutch doesn't exist aren't clutch themselves.

It's possible that Iglesias wants to stay in baseball and the Padres is the only offer he got. Now you ask, what's in it for the Padres? Maybe they recognize that there are several teams who need a SS and they may be able to trade him for something they need. Do the Padres need a relief pitcher who can't get anyone out? Ort for Iggy might work.

No, that was yesterday...or a week ago...or a month ago. Is there any GOOD reason why the Sox are holding onto Ort?

Speaking as someone who was there for yesterday's game with the Yankees, it went pretty much as expected. We had a Sox team that has been depleted by 10 players because of the WBC playing a split-squad game against a NYY team who sent the losers in the "short straw contest", and the two teams (rightfully) played to a tie. The highlight of the game was seeing Mayer get a couple of AB's although he had no chances in the field. But it was a beautiful day and I was watching baseball being played by players who have more talent than I ever had, and I only paid $30 for the privilege. (No $10.25 beers that resemble water.) What's to complain about if you're a baseball fan??

Hmmm... I saw a bedsheet hung from the second deck in Oakland that said, "Will Rogers never met Al Davis".

I was aware of that. Apparently you didn't recognize the fact that I was posting it precisely because it was so preposterous that it had already been debunked. Hence, "If you liked that you'll like this even more!"

...

If you liked that you'll like this even more! https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/01/bobby-dalbec-red-sox-pitcher-alex-cora-called-12-strikeout-performance-in-2016-college-world-series-but-boston-has-never-asked-infielder-about-becoming-two-way-player.html

I still think it's a good question, although it's something we can't answer. IMO the question is "who's driving the boat" when it comes to injuries? I've always been under the impression that when a player signed the contract they were turning control of their ability to play over to the club but now I'm not sure. Instead I sometimes hear that it might have been a mutual decision (IMO-HAH!). That brings it under the heading of, "If it's everyone's responsibility it's nobody's responsibility", which is a very nice and convenient way of avoiding public castigation. You've said in the past that you don't like to try to establish "Blame" for what's happened so instead let's call it "responsibility". Who's responsible for making the decisions regarding injuries? Is it the club or the player? I would at least like to know where to direct my ire here.

...and this is where we differ. I don't think there's any doubt that when a person plays sports of nearly any kind there's more risk to their body than there is to an average man on the street. In my mind when a player signs that big money contract he and the owner made a pact that the owner will pay him to perform and the player agrees to perform even if that means assuming the risk of a medical procedure. I agree that in a worst-case scenario there is a degree of risk in any surgery but the player is assuming that risk in exchange for the money. If you're not willing to assume that risk then don't take the money because you're not willing to hold up your end of that bargain.

Ya... this is what I see as a part of the problem with Story. I'm probably too old-fashioned for this discussion but I've always felt that once as player signs a contract they have an obligation to make every effort to actually be able to play. That means that they have to make the quickest reasonable solution possible to get back on the field. It doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to take a "wait and see" attitude and hope things improve. "HOPE" isn't usually a good strategy, especially not when your employer has millions of dollars tied up in your being able to play and you're getting paid those millions to play. But... I'm old fashioned.

IMO this is the biggest fear. It's not a matter of how you or I would receive him, it's how the players would receive him and the disruption having him might cause. Often times one player can disrupt an entire team. See: Bell, Albert (Joey).

I like this, and I'm pleasantly surprised. It was looking like JH & Co. weren't going to be giving out long term big $$ contracts as a matter of principle. However, the devil may be in the details. Does he have any opt-outs? Are we going to be living this again in a few years?

Exactly. The highly rated Trey Ball was the Sox 1st round choice and the 7th pick overall in his draft class. Where is Trey Ball now? I'm not saying that Mayer is going to be another Trey Ball but we have to realize that the road to The Bigs is littered with can't miss players who did miss. It's a big mistake to put your eggs in the basket of a player who's in A regardless of how well he's playing in A.

There are lots of questions/scenarios from posters here about what might have been the FO reasoning behind not signing Bogearts. I'd refer back to what I posted a few days ago about The Circular Law of Logical Arguments, "Anything is possible when someone doesn't know what they're talking about". IMO these circular arguments serve one purpose: To obfuscate the fact that the entire Bogaerts signings right from the start has been one great bug ClusterF-K. Regardless off why it happened, it did. Let's just admit it and stop making possible excuses for it.

Although you and I are (surprisingly) of the same general thoughts on what's happening to our beloved Red Sox I think you're off base on this one. Whether or not Story was signed to play SS as a backup plan for Bogaert's leaving is now neither here nor there. The Sox shouldn't be hamstrung by a decision made last year regarding positions of a player. If the FO thinks there's a better option they should explore it. Remember, Mookie was signed as an infielder. Besides, whether Story plays SS or 2B isn't going to the deciding factor in whether the Sox win their division. That ship has already sailed. The biggest question right now is whether they can finish out of the cellar.

Do you even read what I write? I'll say it again. I don't need a WSC every year or even every decade. What I want is an owner who will make the right decisions to make the team competitive and IMHO finishing last (behind Baltimore, for God's sake!) isn't being competitive. If you consider my wanting a team with one of the highest ticket prices in baseball to be competitive I can live with that. I don't fault JH or Bloom for not spending enough money - I fault him/them for not spending it in the right places. If the only criteria for making you happy is how much money gets spent here's an offer for you to consider. Pay me $50MM and I'll come to Boston and play baseball. I'm not very good and we won't win many games but at least you can crow about how much money JH has spent. As to what the Yankees paid Judge to "not make the team any better"...they won 99 games last year! What that money did was not make the Yankees worse and that's something the FO doesn't seem to understand - that losing great players makes your team worse. When an owner's team finishes last he doesn't make the team worse unless he's either a) tanking, or willing to put an even worse team on the field thinking that the fans will still show up.

Well, 2022 sucked and the FO handled it by raising ticket prices and talking about starting games 10 minutes earlier in 2023.

Yeah, what ^he^ said. Regardless of the reasons this may have happened we've watched two core players and fan favorites walk to another team and from what we hear the Sox didn't make a competitive offer to either of them. Now we're looking at another core fan favorite who is "galaxies (or whatever that word was) apart" in negotiations. Why should we think this one is going to end any differently? And furthermore, what does it say about 2024 and 2025 when the sox are demonstrating that they aren't willing to pay for their own franchise players, players who have said that they want to play in Boston?

That's very true in a literal sense but saying that "there may be more there than we know about " borders on guilt by innuendo and is patently unfair. It raises the thought that there MAY be an UNKNOWN issue that they aren't talking about. It's how derogatory rumors get started that can destroy someone's reputation.

There's a very fine line between blaming someone and making them responsible, so if you don't blame Bloom and you don't blame Henty who do you hold responsible for the current condition of the Sox? It seems like you're falling back on the adage that if it's everyone's fault then it's nobody's fault. Or is it that you think things are just ducky? While I don't share your optimism for the future at the same time it needs to be remembered that for many of US (In spite of my being accused of feeling 'entitled') we don't NEED a WSC every year or even every decade as long as the teams are competitive and one of the best ways to remain competitive is by recognizing the market and playing top players what the market demands. There's been some mention in past threads about whether these top players are "worth" what they're now getting. Baseball being a business and assuming that owners aren't trying to lose money one has to assume that they feel that having the elite players brings (or keeps) fans into the fold. Even the much hated Yankees recognized that Judge was one of the core members of the team and was necessary for the team to remain COMPETITIVE and being competitive is what builds fan interest and puts fannies in the seats. So they swallowed hard and wrote a big check to Judge. Maybe that's a better model for the Red Sox than continually saying, "We should have handled that better" repeatedly. We'll see when we find out if attendance at Fenway continues to dwindle.

There is something called The Circular Law of Logical Argument and it goes like this: "Anything is possible when someone doesn't know what they're talking about"

What I'm certain of is that the Red Sox want to keep that golden goose that's made JH rich(er) they are going to have to have a 'Come to Jesus" moment with the salary issue in MLB. Their fans aren't going to want to listen to them say "we should have done that differently" while finishing in the bottom half of the division much longer. They're going to have to decide if they want to be competitive year after year or if they're willing to become an also-ran. While they will never publicly acknowledge their decision the fans are perceptive... they'll see it.... and act accordingly. The argument can be made that they are already acting accordingly.

Don't your shoulders get tired from carrying all that water for the Sox FO? First of all, you can't blame them for not seeing the "uptick" in salaries? What's happened isn't an uptick, it's a pattern. Bogaerts contract (based on AAV) is only the 11th most valuable contract signed in the past five years. There's only one reason for them not seeing what he was going to get and that reason is that they weren't looking. That's only the first evidence of incompetence. The second evidence of their incompetence is if, as you say, they didn't recognize that he's an elite player. Everyone in the league knew it so, again, were they not looking? This does raise the question of whether it's incompetent to lie to the fans by saying that signing Bogaerts was their "top priority" when according to Bogaerts the Sox offer was so far below the Padres offer that it wasn't worth considering. Is lying the same as incompetence? Maybe not, if it serves the purpose of trying to sell tickets. Point #2 There seems to always be the same excuse for losing their elite players. Lester...well... we should have handled it better. Betts....well... we should have handled it better. Bogaerts...well... we should have handled it better. Now the FO is in the same situation with Devers, that they've waited too long to sign him. This should have been done over a year ago but... well... they should have handled it better. I can understand a team's making a mistake once or maybe even twice but they now are 4-for-4. That's a good day for a hitter but a poor career when it comes to botching contract negotiations with elite players.

As much as we like to whine about the JBJ trade it's not the reason the Sox finished last in two of the past three years - but it's a symptom of it. I don't have contacts in the Red Sox board room so I don't know why Bloom was hired. Maybe he was hired to be the fall guy while the team rebuilt - but I doubt that. I'd sooner think that he was hired because the Rays were good at occasionally finding lightning in a bottle and JH thought Bloom could make a career of doing that. However, Bloom's luck ran out when he arrived in Boston. The fact is that Boston fans aren't willing to see their team be the laughing stock of baseball while paying near-the-top for ticket prices and the NESN packages - and they shouldn't be! One does have to admire the success of the marketing strategy which allows them to put a sub-standard team on the field, charge high prices, and still get the fannies in the seats though. Who would have thought that would work??