Hugh2

in 1871 Starting pitcher Al Spalding started EVERY.....SINGLE.....GAME. They certainly don't make em like they used too.

Not a knock on Koufax at all, but just a general observation. How the heck can anyone definitively say someones curveball was the best ever from 60 years ago? No one who played back then has had to face a MLB curveball today and no one playing today was alive to face one back then. We also couldn't measure spin rates and break back then either.

Sure they can. I just aim straight up at the sky and let it rip.

I guess I might be a little worried too. Just not big worried.

Didn't he get sidelined with the same injury twice? as in, it sounds like they worked him back too quickly? If he gets sidelined again I'll start to worry. Arias is nice, I've heard people really like him. But at his age, level, track record I don't think he's anything to rave about.......yet.

I think it's also worth noting that the guys who had the physical tools to be superior athletes might not have even gone into baseball back in the day. The way sports are marekted, with all the youth programs, college programs, and the knowledge that atheltes are paid handsomely and parents pushing kids talented into said programs nowadays there's a far greater chance of superior atheltes being lined up with going into sports. You just look at the average athlete today, the average athlete back then look like the guy on my softball team loading up on beer and wings every night. Oh wait, that's me.

So what you're saying is using a teams record at this point in the season to say we beat a "good" or "bad" team is irrelevant? I agree.

If the sweeping was the other way around the Rays would currently be a playoff team.

Maybe I missed something here. But I've been arguing that starters with long term control are rarely traded these days.

It's highly subjective, but I agree.

FOR THE RECORD Just because I don't consider guys with 1 year of control as being long conrtrollable doesn't mean I'm opposed to aquiring such guys. Also. Just because I don't consider guys with 1.5 years of control long term controllable arms doesn't mean I'm opposed to aquiring such guys.

changing my range by .5 years doesn't change my point. To be honest I dont' have a set range, I don't live in a world of absolutes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Conversely, for the sake of argument, lets flip the script to the position side. Maybe this will make it easier to explain my point. The year is 2027, and I want guys like Kyle Teel, Marcelo Mayer, Roman Anthony in my lineup playing for the league minimum, so I can still fit in my budget going out and spending $30 million+ on a power bat to play 2B/3B/RF (wherever) and fit in the lineup. If everyone on my team is 1.5 years away from free agency I'm looking at breaking that team up in a year or two or going over budget and the reality is I'm not the METS. That's why I want guys who are cost controlled for long periods of time. Perhaps my definition has been a bit amorophous but 1 1.5 years certainly does not project into your long term plans unless you're INEVITABLY PAYING those guys, in which case they're no longer "young, COST CONTROLLED, players"

You're missing my point. Yes, I'm purposely exluding 1.5- 2 years because I want guys who are cheap. The further away from free agency they are the cheaper they are. I think that's a relevant point when the point of contention is "controllable, young, proven" arms. The less years you have, the less control you have. I want to be good for more than 1.5 years. Spencer Strider costs 1 million dollars a year. Tanner Houck costs $770K Cutter Crawford costs $760K Dylan Cease costs $8 million Joe Ryan costs $760K Za Gallen $10 million Justin Steele - $4 million George Kirby - $780K When you have that on your roster, you have the capactity to go out and spend money elsewhere, Baseball is a team sport you need lots of good players. The more cheap cost controlled arms you have on your team the better you will be when you do spend money on talent.

When I add talent to my team, I'd PREFER them to be here long term. If they have 1-2 years left, they're not here long term. Unless of course you sign them, in which case you're spending BIG MONEY. This is why I set the bar at more than 2 years. I want guys under control long term You can only spend so much, that's reality, you can't build a rotation with 5 40 million dollar men. I want pitchers who are really really really good who are 3+ years away from free agency. What's that Hugh? those guys are rare? ... ... ... The point. But yes, we agree they need to be developed, which is the antitode here. Sox need to invest more in pitching, whether that be trading for prospects, investing in better trainings and pitching coaches, better scouting, and better drafting.

Again, as I said before, saying something rare isn't analogous with saying it never happens. I would point out there that going back 5 years to find an example is proof of this. I'll admit my scope is a little narrow, because it's rare you can't always trade for a cost controlled "proven" mlb starter. There isn't too many "Spencer Striders" out there with teams willingly looking to deal them. You have to either draft and develop them on your own, or trade for prospects who are still young and develop them, guys like the ones you pointed out along with Gallen in your previous post. And look, people remember the guys who worked out, no one remembers the Allen Websters or Ruby De La Rosas of the world; there are a lot more of those guys. I think you're including these guys into the young cost-controlled arms, I'm just adding "proven" into my definition, which seems relevant if you're a fan base that expects to compete now. Young, PROVEN, cost controlled, available arms are a very rare commodity. For the Sox to do such things requires them to trade MLB talent. If you want prospect packages like that, we'd be trading guys like Juran Duran, or Tanner Houck, maybe you can throw guys like Nick Pivetta at the deadline in there as well. I'm not opposed to trading for guys and developing them, our problem has been two-fold over the last decade or so. Not investing in pitchers in the draft, and not going a great job of developing pitchers, I've been a huge advocate of pouring money into the scouting and development department the last few years. Something the Sox ALLEGEDLY started under Bloom and have continued to ramp up under Breslow. For what it's worth, it looks like it's starting to pay off. Hopefully this is the tip of the iceberg.

I don't consider anyone with less than 1.5 years of control being cost controlled. When I think of trading for a guy with control I think of someone having 3 years left or so, I suppose to be fair we can say 2+ No one is saying those guys aren't traded, I'm saying it's very rare. That makes it hard, not impossible to find and trade for those guys. And usually makes them very expensive. A lot of the examples laid out here have been on the tail end. Guys who are either "prospects" or are rentals and get extended. Those are other avenues of brining in pitching talent as well. But almost no one is just giving away a proven ace with mutliple years of team control left, that's rare. Guys are developing and hoarding those guys. The fact that Sandy Alcantara or Pablo Lopez are traded for when they're "PROSPECTS" strengthens that argument. There's plenty of talented young arms that are traded for who become busts as well.

Proven*

You mean before he ever pitched in AA? So in other words it was easier when he was a prospect? And not when he was a cost controlled probable MLB arm with years of team control left.????? Which continues to be my argument.

Feel confident you can do so*

Weren’t all those guys rentals? Sure some of them signed extensions and that’s the right ideal if you trade for them and feel co didn’t you can do so. But didn’t they all have .5-1 year or team control.

And how many of those guys are TOTRS? 3 of them don’t even have MLB experience. Teams are more willing to deal prospects than young, proven, cost controlled pitching e.g. white Sox Chris Sale. It’s a lot easier to trade for the next Josh Winckowski than it is Spencer Strider.

So you’re saying the FO might be full of crap? I agree

If the season ended today and you wanted to judge per FWar, Duran would be a top 10 candidate for MVP, and Tanner Houck would be your Cy Young. Sox farm system is looking good, they should probably be on everyones top 10 mid season, I suspect they will be in some top 5's. FO always said they'd spend when the time is right, they might get their chance this offseason.

Teams deal young pitching because they’re cheap small market teams and when said player is entering expensive arby years and the team is nowhere near competing, team cashes in for a haul of prospects.