Hugh2

I’ve seen a lot of the comments you’re liking that are in line with my thinking so I’m thinking something is getting lost in translation here. Trust me I don’t care as much as my unreasonable number of posts may suggest lol

Which is a weird because I’m not taking about any 23 year olds here, I was specifically and exclusively talking about Polanco

Ok I'm done with this because I feel like I'm poo pooing on Polanco as if he kicked my dog and called my mom a *** or something. I got nothing against the guy and hope I'm wrong. I just think he's a poor bet for the 2026 Boston Red Sox who can do much better.

You want to play semantics here and define what I said? ok, using the term "great" was probably a little far fetched, perhaps I should have said really really good consistent players. Also using the 34 and 23 is a little ridiculous as the average age of a rookie is 24.5 Most guys aren't even in the league yet and I'm not advocating building a team of 23 year olds. I'm advocating AGAINST signing Polanco because I think he is a huge risk and will be a bust.

I'm 43, and was semi professional athlete for a few years. I get it, but understand there is a big difference between us and them. I worked my ass off from 40-42, lost the 60 lbs I had gained, lost an addtional 20 and got down to 7% body fat and looked better than I ever had at any point in my entire life. But the fact of the matter is I had to put in twice the amount of work and I was playing sports against professionals anymore. If I put the same amount of work in at 27 I'd be even better and stronger then. None of us escape father time. Again I'm 43, and in many ways I feel 10X better than these 20 year old shmucks but at the end of the day I'm 43....not 23. It ain't the same. Doing something well, and then doing it at the pro level is an entirely different thing.

I'm not saying guys north of 35 aren't good. Many of them are, the point is most don't make it there to be good. Polanco could OPS .600 next year and look even worse coming into the following spring and not be on a team and he won't make it there. He might not make it to 34.

The vast majority of MLB players who play the game are out of the game at 35. The average retirement age is 29.5 the average length of a career is 5.6 years. Your memory is failing you because whenever you think of a player who is old you think of the good ones. No one remembers the guys who fall off and stop playing. You think Polanco is more likely to be a Beltre and less likely to be a Matt Kemp??? Based on what because on top of his age Polanco has the skill set that ages quicker. Look up his statcast page, he's in the bottom of the league in bat speed and exit velocity. That is verifiable data. Look up what the age curve is for guys with below average bat speed and exit velocities it's below average you can look that up too, it's verifiable. I'm not emotional about this, I could care less. I'm just stating that Polanco is a bad bet, if you want to make the argument that he is going to defy the odds that's fine...but why? you haven't provided any logical argument here. Your answer can be as simple as you like him and you believe in him and THAT'S FINE!!! You're allowed to like guys but there's not real reason to think he's not a bad bet compared to other guys. Because he just simply is.

Here is another way of looking at it, guys in the early 30's outperform guys in their early 20's because theres less of them. If you added in all the guys who stopped playing because they fell off the cliff the guys in their 20's would blow them away in value. Any year could be the year they go from a 3-4 WAR go to negative value real quick. Players physically peak at age 25 but often don't show signs of it for a few more years as they're still in their "prime" but when physical tools start to deteroiorate the decline accelerates. That accelaration drastically picks up speed at 30 and almost completely wipes out all guys careers at age 35. THat's the risk you take every time you sign a guy who is 30 to a multi year deal. You could get 5-6 more years of good production out of them or 1-2 or NONE. And it has been proven through many studies that poor bat speed and low exit velocity guys hit that wall sooner. Polanco is both, and he's likely not going to take a 1 year deal. No matter how you slice it, he's a massive risk. And I'm ok with risk, but not him.....he's not the guy. Yes younger is better, that's NOT ANAGOLOUS with having all youth. I agree with you, we need some adults in the room and you need to take some chances on some guys. Young guys can be sent back down and optioned......you can't do that with vets under contract.

It’s not just the age, it’s the poor bat speed, poor bat speed guys skills fall off at an earlier age. Polanco, bat speed wise is more like a 39 year old

Because the 31 year old is still playing. But when you hit the wall you stop playing, if Polanco hits a wall and stinks next year he probably plays a whole season or 1.5 before he leaves the game. That doesn’t change the fact that the risk of him being absolutely horrible is 100% high. i firmly believe your the one with your biases at play here, respectfully. I know you like power guys, but what I’m saying is verifiably correct no bias here I explicitly said I could be wrong and Polanco could be great next year but it’s a massive massive risk. And given his age, seeing how this might be the last contract he ever signs, he’s going to be looking for a multi year deal making the risk even that much higher.

Sorry Drew, but you could not be more wrong. Every single MLB player who is in their 20's playing is going to not be good enough to play. 100% without fail. YOu can look at almost every single MLB player who has ever played the game and with caveats they all start to seriously decline around 30, and most are out of the game by 35 or sooner. This is well documented, verifiable, and plays out in real time every single year. We also have wealth of data and numbers over the years to see if certain skill sets decline faster than others and they do. Poor bat and speed, and below average exit velocity guys tend to decline even faster. Polanco fits the exact profile of the type of guy who will not age well. Has he had a decent career up until now? has he shown good power in the past? is he a nice guy? sure but he's a horrible bet. He's the type of bet the Baltimore Orioles make. If we had less holes on the roster, I'd be more open to Polanco, but we already have way too many question marks to be adding another question mark. Players 100% decline because they're getting older and you lose physical tools. This is true for 100% of humans, professional athlete or not.

Polanco is fools gold. And he very well may have one good season left in him, but If I was betting on players to fall off a cliff next year I'd put him at the top of my list.

No. If anything his injury risk is only going to go up and guys significantly decline between 30-35. I get it, we all get mesmorized by the long ball, but that can be blinding and make people make horrible decisions. He has poor exit velocities and doesn't have great bat speed, guys like that decline early and it's amazing he was as good as he was last year. Polanco having a good season would be like gambling with a 20 year old water heater. Polanco's profile scares the crap out of me

I think Polanco is fools gold. War by season 4.0 - 1.7 - 1.3 - 0.3 - 2.6 A steady decline with a little bounce back last year. But he will be 33 next year, he feels like a VERY strong candidate to be the guy that gets paid and just falls right off the cliff. I have zero interest in adding guys with that profile.

I got a kick out of listening to WEEI last night, getting all razzed up about the Sox not signing Scwharber and not even being in on him and how awful of a look that is. Honestly, if the Sox aren't in on him because people like Bregman/Alonso are on their radar because they are guys who play positions they have actual holes at then I'd be more concerned. WIth that said, the Sox recent history the past several years (last year was ok) should worry people more about not being in on Schwarber. But I guess they need something to talk about at night.

The ultimate pipe dream might be for the ghosts of John Henrys past to infiltrate his body and convince him to sign both Alex Bregman and Pete Alonso. (Bichette/Seager) being the plan b an c for Bregman. Then you're either packaging up a prospect to offload Yoshida to open up the DH spot to a rotation (keep Duran) or you're trading an outfielder for a package of prospects to replenish the system. How would a lineup like this do? DH. Jarren Duran 3B. Alex Bregman LF. Roman Anthony 1B. Pete Alonso RF. Wilyer Abreu SS. Trevor Story 2B. Marcel Mayer CF. Ceddanne Rafaela C. Carlos Narvaez Obviously Duran isn't DHing full time, and he'd get plenty of reps in the outfield, there's no full time DH here, you could subsitute Duran for Yoshida, you could also trade off an outfielder at the deadline if Casas is hitting his way back and you want a full time DH. Obviously this lineup would rake in my opinion, but it would probably push the LT payroll up to $279-285 which does not seem realistic AT ALL. But hypothetically, they should be able to do this and stay below the 3rd tax threshold which is where draft pick penalties kick in and a line I don't think the Sox would ever cross. But they could still do this and be able to reset at some point in the next two years. 2026/7 (Gray/Sandoval) come off the books freeing up $30 million. This would get them below the 2nd LT line, and depending on where things go in the next CBA could even get them below the first line all together. They could shed additional payroll by not pick up Chapman $12.7 or trading away Duran $7.75. Just one of those might get them below. But they would certainly want to reset by 2028. And the year after next they have (Story/Yoshida/Hicks) coming off the books for an additional $53.33 million. Max penalties seem to be 3 straight years over and going over the 3rd threshold. Not only could they stay below that 3rd threshold but with over $100 million dollars coming off the books the next two years they could take on two giant contracts and still reset. Why should the ghost of John Henrys past convince him to do this? sales. Ticket sales, increased viewership, playoffs, playoffs, and more playoffs. A WS caliber team should generate more than enough revenue to pay for this. John Henry just has to stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and remember he's an owner of one of baseballs biggest market teams again.

It's as if people completely forgot about the offseason we had last year.

Multiple reports are out that the Red Sox are in on _________. Insert any name there

He was a 2025 draftee who has 32 at bats in a ball. He’s not starting in AAA and we don’t have to worry about him with any log jam in the outfield for a few years. interesting move though, Sox drafting all pitchers now and trading for position players just drafted

Well maybe now that he's gone we can all move on and stop talking about it

People appear to be upset, I guess Grissom was really popular around here

What is the market for Bregman and Alonso at this point? it's seems that most of the big market teams are set on the corners and/or have cheap options. Obviously if the price for a hot commodity falls spenders are going to jump in......but I wonder if the Sox wait it out and go with whoever falls to them

That's what DD does, he signs guys quick even if he has to overpay for it. Not saying it's an overpay, but of all the big signings that can happen early probably a DD signing is the least indicative of what a market is going to be.

I like to plug trades into BTV after they happen. Often times the value is spot on, or close.....other times.....not so much.

Yes, on one year deals not guys signed for 1/2 a decade.