Hugh2

add Abreu and perhaps pumpkin again Duran to that mix and the outfield could look really really bad next year. Or not.

Why? do any of us really know how a guy like "Eddie Romero" for example would run a team? he's probably been one of the most valuable assets to this organization the last couple of decades and may be single-handedly more responsible for the amateur talent here more than any GM/CBO we've ever had. There are people that are within this organization, that didn't come and go with DD and Bloom but were here for Bogaerts, Betts, Devers, and countless others. Just because the MLB team failed, doesn't mean there aren't real gems within the org. Someone like Romero might very well fit that bill. Also, I don't think a GM from outside changes that. They will bring someone in who can implement their vision, whoever comes in will have some sort of mandate or frame under which they can operate.

BTV accepted Yoshida and Verdugo for Cabrera, still I doubt they make that deal. They don't want Yoshida's money, and even verdugo would be an expensive one year deal for a team that does not really want to take on payroll. I agree with Moon, a Duran/Rafaela/Abreu outfield is one that we would be putting a lot of faith into. Duran - has had many ups/downs in his young career. Looked like he finally figured it out this year, but in the second half he put up .696 OPS. The improved defense raises his floor, but he may not be more than a 1-2 war player, nice but not great. Rafaela - A rookie who is completely untested, the defense will be good but the bat has the capacity to fall apart at the MLB level. In a small sample size in Boston, he put up a .666 OPS with 28 K's to 4 walks. Abreu Just like Rafaela, but without the defensive floor. Perhaps more upside with the bat but does not profile as a premium bat and scouts have platoon concerns. Very untested with less than 100 MLB at bats, and went stone cold the last couple of weeks. I'm not saying all three of those guys won't be great, but 1-2 of them may fail, and even if all three succeed, you can have immense growing pains with all three. Too much unproven youth in my opinion, which creates too much uncertainty. That outfield could be really bad.

I don't think the Red Sox are going to roll out an outfield that consists of 2 rookies and 1 still somewhat unproven youngster. I don't think Verdugo is here long term, but I feel it's much more probable than not they retain him.

Holy hell, just looked up Hideki Matsui and it seems like a very similar comp. Both were 29 in their first year here, both played LF and were not very good at all. Matsui hit .287/.353/.435 Yoshi hit .289/.338/.445 Little less OBP little more SLP but almost the same OBP. Matsui put up 16.7 War in his first 5 years in NY. The crazy thing is Yoshida looked fine most of the year after a slow start, and now a slow finish has dragged his stats down a little bit. I think it's way too early to judge, but it's certainly not a disaster contract either, at least the guy can hit.

Fixed it for you

I really really like Justin Turner, but not enough to sign him here for his age 38 and 39 seasons. We have too many DH types on the roster.

Henry will spend some money, and there's literally nothing else to spend it on other than pitching. The position side of free agency is ugly, couldn't make an all-star lineup with it if you tried. The biggest bats in the upcoming offseason. Cody Bellinger OF (will be paid after sucking for years). LHH Matt Chapman 3B Chapman would be an upgrade defensively and is an RHH, but we already have a third baseman making $30 million and Chapman would be a big offensive downgrade. Jorge Soler OF health concerns, after a full season and upside with the bat will likely command a multi year deal. Would be a good RHH bat if healthy, but the defense would suffer. And I'm not sure he qualifies as a "big RHH bat" he's just a good RHH bat. Sox will likely either have to trade for big RHH bat, or make due with some platoons, which given some health might not be all that bad, especialy if they can find a bench bat that can hit from the right side and play better defense. One name who comes to mind if the Sox want to replace one or both of Turner/Duval is Harrison Bader. Doesn't look sexy at first glance with a career .706 OPS (.622 in 2023) but he can play good defense in the outfield at CF, and could probably play RF at Fenway too. While the offensive numbers don't pop he put up a .936 OPS against LHP this year and is a career .824 hitter vs. LHP If used correctly, he would be an offensive weapon against LHP, not a hole in your lineup and he would offer you plus defense in the outfield, and he would likely command the salary of a bench bat. Not the sexiest move at first glance, but if those moves fill in your roster and allow you to go BIG at SP1 and SP2, you could be looking at a dangerous team next year.

You’re on.

He invested in the farm, he didn’t invest more time into scouting guys personally. The Sox, under his guidance increased how much money they spend on trainer, player development, and increased the number of scouts nation wide. Like MVP said, he likely knew the guy at the top, as is with most GMs/CBOs, I doubt he has anything to do with 17-19 of the 20 guys drafted. Honestly, this is the way I like it. Sometimes your job at the top isn’t to be an expert at something but to put the right guys in the right places. As horrible a job Bloom did at the big league level, many of the changes and additions he made at the lower level may pay dividends for years to come.

Yeah, that is heavily implied in said scenario. If you are adding a guy to a roster, someone is getting subtracted. Sox probably could have signed Efflin for 3/45

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!!!!!