Hugh2

No, because you're probably not signing Kluber then. Ahhhh, didn't think about that now did ya.

I disagree. Having a really good pitcher means nothing if the rest of the team isn't up to par. SEE - Ohtani on LA. The Sox aren't good enough yet to justify trading away 3-4 top prospects for one guy. They just are not. You dont' do that as a last place team.

Yes BUT, if the Sox threw more money in for Eovaldi or Efflin they'd still be sitting below the luxury tax this year. It's not like they were up against the cap. Yoshida didn't prevent them from throwing a few extra dollars at Efflin, or another year at Nate.

Exactly, which means the vast majority of short stops getting drafted are guys he probably never even heard of.

I stood on a hill alone back in the day wanting the Sox to go all in for Scherzer. I had a crazy conspiracy theory that they weren't willing to budge on Lester because if he wouldn't take the deal, they were fine going with the MAX upgrade. It does look like they changed their minds but went with the wrong guy in Price. People love to talk about long term contracts not panning out, now an element of luck is involved, but you need the right guys around you making smart decisions about WHO to invest in. One has to belive that the group of Ohtani, Snell, Nola, Yama + have some guys in it that will continue to be good for a very long time. Risk vs. reward.

I don't disagree but I just don't like how it sounds, and I could just be reading it wrong. It didn't have to be a zero-sum game. It's not like, "we addressed a hole in the outfield so we did nothing on pitching" They didn't NOT get pitching because they spent too much time, effort and money on Yoshida. They didn't get pitching because they weren't willing to spend 1.10 on the dollar for guys they didn't think were worth going above their value line E.G. Eovaldi, Efflin.

Let me add, 1 did not work out too well for the Mets. If they had a college course on building a baseball team, it would be a fun assignment to tell students to compare the Dodgers to the Mets, compare and contrast and write an essay on why LA was successful this year and NY was not. I think I would expect to see the A students in the class point out that large franchises that have the money to spend, with that, only see success when they also have a stream of homegrown talent coming up through the system. Yes they spend a ton of money, but they bring guys up like Will Smith, Julio Urias, and James Outman too and develop and keep homegrown players like Clayton Kershaw. When you can do that, it's easy to go out and just throw money at plugging up your holes, and if you overspend on a guy or two so what? that's the price of admission, and the sting is less when you DON'T have to spend money on other positions because you can bring up homegrown talent. This is precisely why I'm against trading away our farm for starting pitching. To me it would be the opposite pendulum swing of what Cohen is doing but equally bad. We are not there yet. If guys like Mayer, Casas, Anthony, Teel, Perales, and Rafaela are real studs, then that value lost will have to be made up for by going out in free agency and overspending on a guy. You just rob peter to pay paul, which I'm fine with when the iron is hot. I see a team that has potential in it's organization between talent that is young and has arrived E.G. Casas, Bello, Devers and guys on the cusp or a year or so away who could be real studs E.G. Mayer, Anthony. That's a possible core, that's a possible core that costs you very little so you just go out and spend money on guys like Nola, Yama, Snell etc. The other option is to punt one more year. After all, the 2025 free agent class looks like it has some real nice pitching in it as well.

I remember wanting to give J.D. a QO and I was called crazy. I was called crazy for wanting to give one to both Wacha and Eovaldi instead. All three of course were contingent upon how comfortable they would be with their medicals and to be fair and best to my recollection I said one to the two of Nat and Michael. But Nate took rejected his when so many wouldn't even offer it because they thought he would take it. Turns out it would not have been a bad one-year signing, but in the end Nate probably would not have made a difference, and the Sox net a pick so at least there is that. in the new CBA world where more than money matters 1-year deals have real value. Yes, the money matters, of course, it matters, let us reframe that statement, it's so much more about WHEN you're spending the money now. These billionaires have the incentive to get under the luxury tax line, but it's equally true that if they want to compete once they have exceeded those thresholds it costs them relatively nothing to just spend up to the next. Overspend on a guy or two for 1-2 years to get them to sign HERE and then by the time they're off the books you need that money gone to reset. Even if you greatly overpay a guy for a year, if you're not planning on resetting that year and that overpay GUARANTEES you sign said player and plug up a hole you should just do it a lot of the time. I would say the same thing about Paxton this year. He's kind of in the same exact boat as Nate and Michael were last year. He's had a decent year but he has obviously slowed down lately. I will say the same thing about him that I said last year about Wacha and Eovaldi, if they're comfortable with his medicals, and they plan on going above the luxury tax line just offer it. If he accepts, you need 3 starting pitchers anyway, if he declines....draft pick. Eovaldi - 4.91 ERA in the second half last year, but much better numbers down the stretch but was limited in August/sept which had some concerns about his durability due to his history. People thought his arm was falling off and should not be signed to a long-term contract. Fine, but a QO was the right decision. Many didn't like it. Wacha is probably a better comparison in terms of performance. In setp/oct last year, he put up a 5.57 era in 6 starts. He did not look good down the stretch and no one wanted to sign him or offer a QO. It would have been a fine decision. People have a recency bias, and with that Paxton does not look like a good candidate for Q.O. but he hasn't pitched more than 20 innings since 2019, and pitched none last year. It could very well be that he's just tired, and comes back next year with more stamina and has one of his best years just like Eovaldi. 4 year worthy? hell no, but I'd take a flyer on Paxton after his performance this year for just ONE year, especially if he's being offered one in conjunction of signing two other legit starting pitchers E.G. Nola/Yama

40 man rosters are much more fungible during the offseason, I think we can get a PTBNL for him from someone.

Also, Chaim isn't drafting players. The people who run the draft are still here, I'd suspect in 2024 the Sox take anywhere from 6-8 short stops again.

By the time the draft come around he could fall out of the top 10 regardless, boards will look very different by next summer. There are a ton of Kids going into their Senior year of highschool or Junior year of college that are just going to pop. It's fun to look this early, but half the big names aren't even on there yet.

Yeah I would say every year is different too. I think the spirit of Boggs comment is pretty good but who knows what that tier is, I don't think it's constant. A draft can have 4-5 guys at the top or a top tier of 7-10 guys. Also, with all the deal cutting that can happen at the top sitting in the 10-15 range can sometimes still land you an opportunity to pick a guy who was ranked as top 10. This has happened to the Sox twice in the past decade. Groome (2016) was ranked in the #1-#3 zone and fell to the Sox at 12. TEEL (2023) Was ranked in the #6-#10 range and fell to the Sox at 14.

While it's not set in stone it does seem highly probable that the Sox are set at 11, because the Mets will likely sit at 8. Yes, So can they can both go 0-4 and there's a very good chance they're still both right there. It's not like they're surrounded by really good teams winning ballgames down there in the lower 1/3 of MLB teams. Sox have a lottery pick. #1 is about a 1% chance, I'd be happy if they were able to move up a couple of slots. I did Tankathon.com/mlb and got the #2 pick on the 2nd try and then the #4 pick immediately after. Too bad that's not real.

Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank!!!!!

Red, effectively every single pitcher to ever play the game is better in the pen. When you don't have to see the same batter 3 times. When you can scale back your arsenal to 2 pitches and focus on being better at just those two. When you only have to throw one inning and can reach back and throw harder. When you can be used specifically at certain times where match up favor you. Your stats get better. I guarantee you if we took every single starter in the league and put them in the bullpen for a season 99.99% of them are going to be better. To me, the best argument against Putting Garrett in the bullpen is his apparent inability to stay healthy in a rotation. So I'm with ya....just for the right reasons.

Dear god I hope you're wrong, but FWIW Whitlock has probably looked better in the pen for longer than Joba ever did.

Good, we mine as well tank and go for the #1 pick now. Cora is a genius

Remember there is also a lottery, so technically if the season ended today we would have a greater than 1% chance of getting the #1 overall pick. Wouldn't that be something?

I'm not sure anyone can lead an injured brigade of mediocrity to greatness, I'm not sure even Pedey could have helped this team.

I don't think comparing Bard to Whitlock is very fair at all. Whitlock, unlike Bard had more than just a 1-2 pitch mix, Whitlock is also built more like a starter. Also, Bard started to fall apart at the end of the year before he was converted. Whitlock was also developed as a starter and only moved to the pen to be kept on the roster as a rule 5 guy who was coming back from injury. Apples to Oranges and unfair comparison. Also, Whi

Whitlock has the prototypical starters build and was developed as a starter. Only being selected as a rule 5 guy put him in the pen. Of all the things to hate Bloom for, this is probably last on the list. I don't think there is a GM or CBO out there who would not of made that same exact decision.

Which is precisely why I said 2-3 and not 3 will move to the pen, also I think a third starter is signed, although I don't expect him to be in the Snell/Yama/Nola tier.

Per my predictions, this is precisely why Bloom was let go. They're going to be making moves this offseason. Whatever price the Sox have to pay to either sign or trade for a TOTRS, I guarantee a certain percentage of people in Sox Nation and on this board will highly criticize it. I'll say the same thing to them then that I will now. The price of anything is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay, if you're not willing to spend a dollar more than every other team, or at least lets say 28 of the teams.....you're never going to sign said player.

SP1 Free agent SP2 Free agent/trade SP3 Chris Sale SP4 Brayan Bello SP5 (one of Pivetta/Crawford/Houk/Whitlock) I say 2-3 of those guys in the pen because it wouldn't be unsurprising if one of the 1-4 guys in unavailable in camp. I also wouldn't mind them signing a 3rd starting pitcher in addition to two aces. Someone who fits the mold of a Corey Kluber signing. I know I know, I know, just saying that hurts the ears. Sometimes signings like that work out great, and sometimes they do not. Blooms blunder was relying on Kluber, signing a guy to that profile ON TOP of signing two legit arms is fine however. Anyways, those 4 are all much better in the Pen: ERA/WHIP/SO9/ G.W. ERA 2.69 WHIP 1.056 SO9 10.1 T.H. ERA 2.69 WHIP 1.13 SO9 9.6 K.C. ERA 3.35 WHIP 1.08 SO9 9.6 N.P. ERA 4.19 WHIP 1.193 SO9 11.8 Throw 3 of those guys with Jansen/Martin/Winc and the pen looks stacked.

I have never been wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was only mistaken.