Hugh2

I like Breslow.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Ask Philly and the Dodgers. If you ask me that's not Blooms problem, Bloom's problem was his apparent allergy to star players and pulling the trigger on trades.

I think those things absolutely 100% matter and they make Breslow an exciting guy here in Boston. BUT he hasn't done crap yet, and it's also true that having resources helps no matter what your background. They have indirectly eluded to Breslow having more resources at his disposal. He talks a good game, his smarts + baseball experience + track record in Chicago have me thinking he's 10000X better than Bloom. But his job will be tremendously easier if he's allowed to go out and spend whatever it takes to bring Ohtani, Nola, or Yama in here.

Yeah, I was one of those people. I actually was arguing that Bogaerts and his agent were asking for 300/10. I didn't think he would get that, but I figured it would be the starting point for Boras. Figured someone would come in and say..."Yeah.......I'll pay $30 per but not for 10, maybe 6-7 years), the AAV and years would get split somewhere. The guess I stuck with all last offseason was $217/8. I knew I was high, and I was banking on it being higher than what most people were guessing because that's almost ALWAYS the case. I did not think it was going to be that, that was just insane.

It's such an interesting argument because using hindsight anyone would take Bogaerts now BUT, anyone could be forgiven if they took Story over Bogaerts if they were building a hypothetical team back in 2020. The size of their contracts still gives Story time to be a better deal, but he has to come back strong, and Bogaerts has a lot of years left on his deal.

And one got $110 dollars more. I suppose Story's elbow is what drove his price down. Could end up being a bargain if he comes back full strength this year. To date, that has not been the case. We will see.

If you factor in a 5% mob inflation rate, and consider Story WAS of equal value to Bogaerts, then Story would have been worth 258/11 back in 2022. Which ironically is almost the exact AAV Story has now…..minus 5 years. If Story has healthy he would have been opting out. That only works out for the Sox if he’s healthy going forward. Which isn’t terribly unlikely.

The argument will always be there that up until 2021 Trevor Story was just as valuable and arguably more than Xander Bogaerts, afterwards.......up until, not so much.

That's still not a significant difference, and I'm not sure it makes up for the defensive gap. The point was, is and will always be that at that point in time, Story was just as valuable a player as Bogaerts was. since then is different.

By 5 basis points? for all intents and purposes that's equal.

so the career AWAY OPS for Bogaerts vs. Story being equal amounts to Story just being a better RHB vs. LHP. WHich....kind of fits the roster much better right now. If healthy, Story would have been the better deal at SS. He could make a lot of people look bad if he could ever stay healthy.

Worse on O? I never bought that story, ehhh? never bought that Story!!! hahaha Ok, at the time of the Trevor Signing here is his career slash line vs. Xanders. TS .276/.341/.537 OPS .878 XB .293/.354/.460 OPS .814 Now everyone at the time cried "it's all coors field" Ok, lets look at their career AWAY splits at the time. TS .751 OPS XB .755 OPS Xander had a little bit more OBP and Story more SLG, when you took away Coors field they were almost IDENTICAL in OPS. With the plus glove, you could have made the argument that at THAT point in time Trevor Story was the better player.

Yama + Gray.

I nominate this for dumbest post of the month award. Good luck Stork.

Lets think of it this way. You're the owner of a sports franchise, it's either a baseball, hockey, football, or basketball team. ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL HERE, the money, your revenue, your love for all four sports etc etc etc. The only difference is you have to pick being an owner of one, and whichever one you chose you're getting 5 #1 picks overall in a row. Which sport are you choosing? No one is picking baseball. I'm not a big enough hockey fan to put baseball last on that list, but I certainly wouldn't put baseball ahead of the NBA or the NFL.

I think in baseball that's more done to see what you have in guys and give them time to adjust to big-league pitching when the games don't count. In other sports, I think it's much more intentional.

So is Ryan Weber just not that good? or did they play him on purpose so they'd lose? or was he instructed to pitch badly on purpose??? What other options did the Sox have in their rotation? it's not like they were sitting their ACE. Not pumping resources into a s*** team is different than sitting all your starter. Unless of course, all the Sale injuries were fake. Maybe the Sox didn't want to play Sale because they wanted better draft picks all this time.

How much does that really happen? maybe you move up a few spots yada yada yada. But it's not like trying to throw a whole season, baseball is also very different. You don't have a fringe top prospect in the NFL AAA team down in Worcester that may or may not be able to be a starter next year. You need to figure those things out and being able to do so is very important. Playing a guy like Abreu, or Rafaela a few times a week is very very very different than "we want to lose, how do we play the game today so we definitely lose" I don't think the former happens in baseball. Lets say the Sox brought up Drohan, and Gonzelez, and played Rafaela and Abreu and they went on a TEAR in september and missed the playoffs by one game. NO ONE is sitting around thinking "omg no, we didn't get a top ten pick" rather you're excited for next year. Now, lets take another sport, like the NBA. You have no shot at the championship but you play your heart out to a .500 record. How content are you? how great do you feel about the future? Player development is so much different in baseball, you don't HAVE to have top ten picks every year to have a top farm system or even get a MVP caliber player. I just do not believe that any team, with malice and intent purposely try to lose a large sum of games during the year.

There's a very stark difference to tanking in the NBA "we are pulling players and not doing any matchups" vs. MLB. were you just don't put the resources into a team that isn't ready to compete. Like, there would be a difference between NOT playing Ohtani, and then consciously making the decision to not go out and sign him. The later is happens, and seems to be how "tanking" is done in the MLB but that's very different than what tanking in other sports is.

I'm curious, no arguing, if there's a zillion stories and its' that well known I figured it would be easy to say they purposely sat good players and started AAA guys, or they instructed players to tip pitches etc etc. I don't know how the functionally tanked.

No he shouldn't. But lets say he wakes up with a little stiff neck, and maybe you play him when you're in a playoff hunt, but no need to play him with a heightened chance of injury so I think you're more cautious with your long term access. I mean, did the Sox do a lot of that down the stretch? they mostly played their starters. I think this happens more in other sports like the NBA, I can certainly relate to spending money on a game and maybe you can only afford to do that once a year, and you're watching the JV team play. I don't think management goals are always going to be in align with what fans want, but I personally believe that it doesn't ever really make sense to tank in baseball. Nobody wants to lose, and the incentive to getting a #1 overall pick isn't the same in baseball as it would be in.....lets say the NFL.

How did they tank?

I don't fully disagree, I just don't think you need to push those guys either. For example, I don't think you're sitting a guy like Bello for the whole month, but do you skip a start, or give him an extra day of rest down the stretch when you're out of it? absolutely.

We could all argue this all day, and there are a million reasons we could all say we are right or wrong. But if we have to use an incident from 1991, 32 years ago, about 1 individual 22-year-old.....it kind of doesn't make the argument that tanking is a thing. If anything, it helps make the argument that it is not and that is an exception, it's also a young individual and not a team.

I think this is the only way you can intentionally tank. Unless of course players are purposefully trying to strike out or give up home runs. I doubt there are any players willing to do that on purpose. With fielding an inferior team, if it’s September first and you’re securely in last place, why pile up innings on arms, or play guys every day who are near a full season and can use rest? I think it makes sense to play younger guys more, not to lose but to see what you have in them. If you end up winning games with those players don’t you get excited for the future? Would t you be happy about that? You’d think in an “intentional tank” you wouldn’t be happy winning games there but I doubt that. Let’s say the Sox switched up months but ended with the same record, but played .600 ball in September with more of the youth playing. Does anyone really think John Henry is sitting around saying “damnit, why are these young guys who we have under team control for 6 years and could possible help win future championships playing so well!!!!!” I don’t think teams intentionally tank. It just makes so very little sense for baseball