Fan_since_Boggs

Its the general manager's job to get this stuff right. Dombrowski got it wrong. That matters. He took a risk in acquiring Thornburg, and it blew up on him. He has taken a lot of risks since the Red Sox hired him. We'll see what happens.

If you click the link, Thornburg had an injury to his UCL. Serious stuff. If you click the link, Cameron liked Thornburg (more than I thought), but he was concerned about his injury history and calls Thornburg "high risk." I think Cameron might be OK with trading for Thornburg, but he isn't going to give up T.Shaw for him.

It was foreseeable to the Fangraphs guy (Cameron), who said he wouldn't trade for Thornburg due to his injury history. It's funny, I think Cameron has disagreed with just about every trade Dombrowski has made with the Red Sox.

This is a great idea. Strengthen the farm system, thus putting the Red Sox in a better position to acquire a Verlander type during the regular season.

Agreed. I think it would be better to sign Santana (won't need a long term deal) for 1b and then Martinez for LF. You then trade Bradley to upgrade the rotation, target a younger SP. Wasting an asset like Bradley to acquire Abreu when there are so many other 1b options on the free agent market would be a bad idea, IMO.

We have the T.Shaw deal, too, Dombrowski basically gave him away for free. As far as the Sale trade goes, I agree with the Fangraphs guy: Dombrowski overpaid. I think Kopech will soon be a dominant ace in the major leagues and Moncada could be a 30-30 guy at second base (with a lot of strikeouts). It just so happens that the Red Sox need a starting 2b and need power. It just so happens that Sale showed some troubling signs last year when he declined in the final month of the season and was a complete disaster in October. Sale was excellent for most of the season, but he wasn't excellent when it mattered most. True, Machado is only signed for one more season, but that is why he can be acquired--the Orioles are only trading away one season of value (plus the draft picks). If he had three more years on his contract, the Red Sox wouldn't have a chance to acquire him. The Red Sox are big market. I think you acquire him if you can and then worry about signing him later. The Red Sox can sign him long term, that should be the least of their worries.

Bradley & Bogaerts & minor league talent to the Orioles for Machado. Or get a third team involved if the Orioles don't want Bradley (they have A.Jones, of course). The Orioles need SP. Yeah, I know, this is a crazy idea--little chance of happening. But this is the kind of guy you should target in a Bradley trade. My fear: Dombrowski will trade Bradley in a deal for J.Abreu. That would be beyond stupid, but typical of Dombrowski. It would be beyond stupid because the Red Sox can easily find a starting 1b in free agency. If not for Machado, I would prefer trading Bradley for a rotation upgrade and then use free agency to address 1b and LF (moving Benintendi to CF). I agree with this: I don't have confidence in Dombrowski, however. I think he is fixated on Abreu and will cave in to the White Sox's asking price. He has caved in every single time and so why not this time as well.

We went through a period in the early 2000s where a team like the Yankees could essentially outspend everyone and buy their way into the playoffs every year. This happened in the late 1990s too--the Yankees economic advantages were a key reason behind their success and allowed them to bring in guys like Clemons, D.Cone. Other teams couldn't afford such players. Then we went through a period where economic inequality (in baseball) didn't seem to be such a factor in determining success. Even some of the small market clubs were getting billions in TV revenue and thus could afford quality free agents or could afford to give extensions to their top players. But now, we seem to be entering into a period that resembles the early 2000s with big market teams shelling out (or taking on) huge contracts while small market teams aren't serious contenders for top available talent. As a result, the big market teams will be more successful, will dominate the smaller markets in the standings. Last year, three of the biggest spenders made the playoffs: Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox. All three teams will likely make it again in 2018. This is the difference between the NFL and MLB. The NFL has a better system--they share revenues and have a salary cap and this makes the NFL more competitive. Whereas in MLB, you can pretty much buy yourself a playoff appearance through outspending the competition. Brian Cashman will never get the credit he arguably deserves unless he goes somewhere else and succeeds. As everyone knows, Cashman's success as a front office executive is largely based on the Yankees outspending the competition. For example, the Yankees don't win a championship in 2009 if they can't afford Sabathia and Texiera, not to mention the huge contract the Yankees gave A-Rod after the 2007 season. A-Rod was on juice during the 2009 championship run--he hit really well in the playoffs that year especially against the Twins.

You're right: 300 million is too much for Machado. But I would defend my larger point: I would rather invest big bucks in a guy who can play SS than corner outfield. The Red Sox have two awesome corner outfielders going forward, but I'm not high on Bogaerts--I see Machado as a significant upgrade. The other alternative is to sign Machado for 3b and move Devers to 1b, but that wouldn't make sense if Devers shows improvement defensively, which might happen. To be sure, I'll be disappointed if the Red Sox miss out on all three players: Stanton, Machado, and Harper. They need to sign one of the three -- after all, they are the big market Red Sox competing against the big market Yankees. Machado is my first preference due to position scarcity. Harper is interesting but you would have to move Betts to CF. I'm not sure if the Red Sox would be willing to do that. While 10 years, 300 million is too much for Machado, I would certainly be willing to give Machado a 10 year contract. He is young enough for that kind of contract. I'm not sure about his yearly salary, but to sign him you might have to pay him 25 mil per year, especially if he has a big 2018 season.

Or maybe the Red Sox decided they weren't going to spend 300 million on a corner outfielder, especially when corner outfield is already a strength of the team with Benintendi and Betts. There are plenty of corner outfielders who can hit--why spend 300 million on one? In contrast, spending 300 million on a starting SS who can hit like M.Machado makes perfect sense. Moreover, based on the 2017 season, the Red Sox would greatly benefit from an upgrade at SS.

I posted this article in another thread; it is worth reading: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/12/9/16756778/giancarlo-stanton-trade-miami-marlins-new-york-yankees-bruce-sherman I think MLB screwed up when they agreed to sell the Marlins to a scumbag like Sherman. They really should have been more cautious and found a better owner. Sherman tried to shield himself by bringing in D.Jeter (another scumbag, but someone who is loved by baseball people). By using Jeter as his front, Sherman was hoping that MLB would overlook some of his prior business practices. It worked. Jeter was essentially the attractive whore and Sherman was the pimp behind it all.

Over at Soxprospects, Eric Van is making the case for Hosmer. Two points. (1) Due to the 1b market glut, Eric Van claims that Hosmer will sign for less than 100 million. (2) He uses a lot of sabermetrics to defend signing him. His main point seems to boil down to: "He hits really well when he succeeds in going the other way, as he will try to do if he plays half his games in Fenway." True, Eric Van is often wrong about things, but his stuff/commentary is interesting to read.

You're a troll. Why don't you get out of here and join a Yankees board/forum. Let me guess: you stick around a Red Sox forum so you can act as a troll and get attention. Only a troll would argue that Guzman is a better prospect than Groome or Chavis. No one in their right mind would think that--your real intentions are pretty obvious.

Yep, exactly. BTW, a great article here. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/12/9/16756778/giancarlo-stanton-trade-miami-marlins-new-york-yankees-bruce-sherman

He has one pitch, Troll. His secondary stuff needs work. At this point, he profiles more as a reliever than starter. He wouldn't be the Red Sox #1. Why don't you go to a Yankees forum and get the hell out of here, Troll.

Why don't you go to a Yankees forum and get out of here troll.

I just hope he doesn't trade our two best prospects (Groome & Chavis) for J.Abreu. I actually think Dombrowski is dumb enough to do that, but maybe John Henry would block it. There are so many 1b types on the free agent market, it doesn't make sense to trade prospects for Abreu. I want them to sign C.Santana.

If the Yankees are smart, they will turn around and try to find a sucker for C.Frazier. He was terrible at the major league level last year for the Yankees (84 OPS+) and has never produced big numbers in the minor leagues. The time to trade him is now before he loses more value.

You're a Yankees fan posting on a Red Sox forum. You're the Troll. If you weren't a Troll, you would be posting somewhere else.

I don't like the rotation -- too fragile, too much can go wrong with it. Tanaka will soon need TJ surgery and he had a strange up-and-down year. He is likely going to need surgery sooner rather than later. CC isn't on the team, but he isn't a big deal anyway. Sure, he had a quality season, but he could pitch to the tune of a 5.00 ERA next year and no one would be surprised. Severino was great, but he also threw a lot of innings last year, let's see how he does going forward. Gray is fragile. Montgomery came out of nowhere; I'm not sold on him at all in terms of producing sustained success.

No big deal. The Yankees were probably going to get Harper next off-season anyway. With Stanton on the team, I doubt the Yankees have a spot for Harper. I would rather see the Yankees acquire Stanton than Ohtani. The Yankees need to upgrade the rotation--they can't win a championship with their current rotation. And if something goes wrong with a guy like Severino, they are in trouble. I didn't want Stanton. I want the Red Sox to target Machado next year for SS. While the Yankees will be the favorites, the team that wins in December usually doesn't win in October. With that said, I'm not overly optimistic about the Red Sox, either. I think Dombrowski sucks. Maybe Theo will come back one day..... The Red Sox would be in a better position if they had Kopech in AAA--perhaps the best minor league SP in the game, together with Moncada starting at 2b (to help with the Red Sox power deficit). Sure, they wouldn't have Sale, but they would go to free agency to address that hole. Sure, without Sale, the Red Sox wouldn't have won the AL East last year but who cares -- they didn't win anything last year anyway.

Joe Girardi incorporated analytics--this is why he was called by some, "bookbinder Joe." In contrast, I never once heard Boone refer to analytics when he announced games, whereas a guy like D.Cone did this on a regular basis. It's funny, most of the GMs in baseball today, including Brian Cashman, devalue the role of manager. I can certainly understand that line of thinking. But what they forget to tell you is that a high school kid with basic math skills and knowledge of the game could be a competent and quality GM. It doesn't take much skill or talent.

PED users have distorted history. It is a history that baseball should not celebrate. This is totally wrong. Manny was caught cheating twice (two failed tests). Palmerio was caught cheating once. McGwire has now admitted to using PEDs, using the A.Pettitte ******** excuse: for injuries. A-Rod never failed a test but he admitted to using PEDs while with the Rangers. Moreover, in exchange for immunity, A-Rod testified under oath that he used PEDs while a member of the New York Yankees. Bonds hasn't admitted to it, but he was associated with that clinic. Clemons hasn't admitted to it, but most people think he is lying and there is pretty strong evidence that he took PEDs. The evidence is conclusive enough, but each HOF voter will need to make that decision on his own. If they feel the evidence is there, they shouldn't vote for a Clemons. There is a huge difference between the players listed above and the R.Henderson, I.Rodriguez, Piazza types. That is, there is a difference between hard evidence and innuendo. We have hard evidence for the players listed above; innuendo for the second group. Let the second group in, but the HOF should reserve the right to remove players if evidence surfaces after they have been put into the HOF. To be sure, we already have evidence for the first group.

If Boone had any interest in sabermetics, he hid it from the world, unlike D.Cone who quoted sabermetic stats on a regular basis. I continue to believe that Cashman has made two huge mistakes: (1) Trading A.Miller for a hyped prospect in C.Frazier and a few other pieces. If the Yankees have A.Miller, they might have won the W.S. last year. (2) Firing a quality manager in Joe Girardi just to save a few bucks for a guy with no managerial experience. I could be wrong (caveat), but I think the Yankees will pay the price for this decision in 2018.

There is a big difference between voting for someone who was a definite PED drug user (Bonds, Clemons, Manny, A-Rod, Mcgwire, Palmerio) versus voting for someone who may (or may not) have used PEDs (Piazza, Bagwell, Henderson). The HOF will be a disgrace if they let in the former group (definite drug users). The latter group is an unknown--the result of imperfect information. Sure, we have imperfect information, that is the reality of life, and so, yes, drug users will get into the HOF. But there is a big difference between that and voting for players who were definite juicers. Once you let definite juicers into the HOF, the standards (and ideals) of sportsmanship, fair play, etc., will be greatly diminished throughout our society. The HOF has a responsibility to not let that happen.