Hugh2

I violently disagree with the statement I’m building around Mayer. im building around Anthony/crochet. Mayer is an ancillary piece I’d trade in the right package. Certainly a player in their mid 30’s is not on a list of players I’d trade him for

Tall, elite extension

Polanco last two years. 0.3 2.6. At ages 30 and 31, and you'd be banking that he'd be worth more ages 32-33 over a kid who was a top 25 prospect in baseball who is going to give you his ages 23-28 seasons? How many guys who fit that profile play better than 2.9 WAR over 6 seasons between ages 23-28? I'd bet it's a very large list. That's sever win now type of moves. Even before factoring in that the money is not the same, Mayer is under team control.

Yes, but you're getting Bo Bichette for 5 years in his prime before he even gets to Martes age. Typically the argument for paying for those down years is you make up for it at the front of the contract. Giving up talent to buy the entire back half of a contract is an entirely different thing. But you're right, Bo is likely a pipe dream.

But who are you going to add? if that's your budget you're still not adding Bregman and you're down two starting middle infielders if you trade Mayer away. So what is your infield? Okamoto/Story/Marte/Casas? are is that any better or less riskier than Mayer/Story/Bichette/Casas or Bregman/Story/Mayer/Casas? I'd also argue that this would be the exact opposite of "in a vaccum" because in a vaccum I'm willing to make decisions sometimes that aren't winning moves in the aggregate E.G. lets bunt or steal a base. In a vacuum I'd be willing to trade away youth for proven veteran talent.....in a vaccum.

Add. I'm not against adding elite talent and taking chances, even on the aging curve. This is why I've advocated for the signing of a guy like Bo Bichette. I'd rather overpay for Bo Bichette a little bit than save a few bucks on Marte, pay for his decline, and give up Mayer/Early

I'll still stick to my guns, that if you take 100 Marcel Mayers and compare their age 23-27 seasons to 100 Ketel Martes age 33-37 seasons, the 100 Mayers are going to win every single time. Does that not mean some of those 100 Mayers will be out of the sport in a year or two and a complete bust? does it also not mean that Some Martes will continue producing at an elite level and staring down an invite into the hall of fame down the road? yes both are true, but the data clearly shows us how things turn up in the aggregate. There's nothing wrong with wanting to trade Mayer for Marte, but don't expect 1/2 of the people out there to agree with you that it's a good strategy to do so. Personally I see that as a "win now" move where I would personally like to see the Sox trying to win for the next decade and not just the next 2-3 years. There's a ton of data out there about the war guys in their mid 20's put up vs. guys in their mid 30's and the reality is Mayer is at an age where value skyrockets and Marte is at an age where it plummets. Again I'm not going to compare 1-1 because I don't have a crystal ball and neither do any of you but I'll take 100 23 year olds careers over 100 33 year olds (from 33 on) every single time. And I'll be right

Apparently Breslow has a type and Bennett is it.

So Polanco?

So Mayer

What would you rather have. All else equal and zero other moves being made. Marcelo Mayer for 6 years under team control or Polanco for 2?

Pipeline is not updated, Boston’s farm system has taken a huge step back from trades and graduations while Bennett is currently ranked 6th in Washington’s system. While Perales is ranked 5th in Boston’s. im not saying I like the trade, but the difference between Perales isn’t as extreme as people think. The Sox certainly seem to think not. are they right? Ask me again in several years.

for LT purposes the payroll is currently at $226.19 according to Sox Payroll. https://soxprospects.com/payroll.htm

https://www.forbes.com/teams/boston-red-sox/#:~:text=Historical,$208M

Red Sox had 574 million revenue the year before with over $120 in net income. They were the most profitable organization in the league. If they are saying they lost money I'm saying they're effing lying. I'll take this as posturing from the owners heading into negotiations in 2027.

And on top of that, how good was Quinn Priester at that point in time? Couldn't we use the same exact logic he used on Carlos Narvaez and say that the Brewers just got lucky. Nobody thought he was that good then, and up until then we had already built Quinn Priester back up a little bit and made him look better. Breslow actually gets credit for that trade on the other end getting value for Nick Yorke.

I mean, you got be consistent both ways. These teams spend fortunes on personnel and technology that evaluate these guys and we have literally zero ideal what they knew or thought about Narvaez before trading for him other than they traded for him. Erod was a far away prospect, Narvaez was literally mlb level who started on the 2025 roster, the Sox obviously targeted him so it's ludicrous to suggest that they just made some random trade for a catcher and happened to guess right. They traded away Teel and needed a catcher, they then went out and got a guy who happened to be a stud. That's not luck.....

WHat does that even mean?

See, I don't think that's even close to an accurate assesment. Just because you or I didn't know who he was doesn't mean the Sox didn't. And right now Kyle Harrison literally has the exact same profile Quinn Preister did at the time of that trade. 24, young, former top 25 overal prospect, and hasn't really put it together yet. You scold them for trading him to a team that helped him put it together but then claim Naraez was dumb luck because you didn't know who he was.

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring and publicy state that I think when we look back a year from now that the Oviedo trade was the great trade that we had no ideal how great it was at the time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but if I'm right I'm gloating like a MF.

Prospects are 100% for building your team, and sometimes that means trading guys away. And if ownership isn't going to let you play in the deep end then you're going to have to make big swings for guys like Crochet. I don't think Bloom had the balls to make a trade like that.

We paid a fair price for that trade and so far it has worked out amazing. Narvaez was a great trade, Quinn Preister was a great trade, Yhoiker Jajardo was a good trade, I liked teh David Sandlin trade, the Sonny Gray trade should work out great, I'm also very optimistic about the Oviedo trade what gets looked over with him is when he returned, his STUFF+ took a dramatic turn forward he looks like a candidate to be a completely different pitcher. Getting Dick FItts and Weissert for Verdugo. His only two bad trades was Devers and Chris Sale. Sale had been injured hot garbage here for years. It's a bad look winning a cy young but who could have predicted that? and it's not like his year would have put us over the top and Sale regressed last year. Honestly that trade may have been a blessing in disguise because what if we don't trade for Crochet? or even worse what if we extended him or his options get picked up because of his performance and then he retreats back to being injured? The Devers trade I'll mark down as bad, but we still don't know what they can do with Harrison and Hicks and I think it is obvious he was forced into making that trade.

I mean every GM makes bad trades if you exclude everything but the bad trades. I think trades has actually been his strength

I'm still on the Breslow bandwagon, this team could be so much worse with ownership that doesn't allow the CBO/POBO to play in the deep end with the big boys.

This is true, and that kind of rubs me the wrong way and takes away a lot of the goodwill they earned back from signing Bregman last year. He opts out after one year, they win one playoff game that year, and they lose draft picks from it. Not a good look.