Hugh2

I wouldn't advocate jerking any guy around but moving a guy from starting to the bullpen is perfectly normal. Even if you think his place is in the bullpen, you let him start as long as he can, maybe he proves you wrong but if nothing else he logs more innings and lets his stuff develop more. Beeks seems destined for the bullpen, he just doesn't seem to have the size to endure a full season nor the strength to go deep into games, and his stuff is better in short bursts. Nothing wrong with that, we have holes in the pen too and he could be really good there.

I think this just goes to show that teams are more and more viewing the strikeout as just another out.

This may be the craziest thing I've read in a while. No offense, but this is just bananas, and writing words in caps doesn't make it any less crazy. Do you honestly believe, a team(s) is going to let a perfect healthty player sit out a signifant portion of the season because he says he's injured when he is not? If Price was that unhappy here then why not just pitch good enough to opt out? That narrative makes more sense than yours and that's all you have to begin with, a narrative that makes little sense. Don't you think teams have X-Rays, CAT-Scans, and MRI's on players? I'm dealing with a workers comp issue right now, an employee can't just delcare themselves unable to work. They have to go see a doctor, and they can have the surgery and go back to work if they wish, they can't just sit at home and get paid for nothing with zero proof of injury. Also, this did not come out of left field. Price had been dealing with issues since spring training, he had pain for a long time before and it had been festering up. This was in no way shape or form a completely random injury that came out of nowhere as you have claimed. And even if it did, this wouldn't be any less bananas. Listen, I'm not too happy with how things transpired with Eck and Price last year either, but that doesn't mean we have to throw on the tin hats and go all conspiracy theory about everything.

Hitting a guy in the mid back is one thing, and many would argue is part of the game.....but Headhunting is a completely different issue. No one should advocate for guys being thrown at there.

I believe that ship has sailed a long time ago. He probably still has a higher percentage of making it as a starting pitcher as he does a position player at this point in his development. If his stuff ticks up in short bursts and he can recreate himself as a reliever that is the best place for him right now.

Trey Ball had a nice day out of the bullpen. 2 IP, 0 Hits, 1 BB, and 3 K's and threw 24 of his 36 pitches for strikes. Perhaps his stuff can play up in the pen and he can recreate himself as a shutdown reliever???

Rebuilding the farm is always the goal and inevitable. Even with a low first round pick you can strike gold, Aaron Judge, and Mike Trout were selected 32nd and 25th overall in the first round. I think the concern, or perhaps a better term the hurdle to cross is rebuilding the system under current CBA rules. The Sox have done very well over the years to take advantage of loopholes in the draft. In the past, you could receive multiple first-round picks, and spend without much consequence. The MLB draft is a different animal in that you can draft an HS player who can elect to not sign and go to college. Some examples of guys the Sox have drafted out of highschool who didnt' sign and came back into the draft to sign much higher have been You can't spend more than 5% over your cap without losing draft picks. This system didn't exist until recently. In a year like 2011, the Sox not only had multiple first rounds picks but they had a larger bank. They could draft Swihart, JBJ, Barnes, and Owens in the first round. That's 6.65 million dollars alone in the first round which is more money than they had to spend in 3 of the last 4 drafts overall. On top of all that they still had 750K to throw at Mookie Betts and 4 million overall outside the first round. That type of playing field to pump talent into your system is just not there for the Sox. That doesn't mean it won't happen, that doesn't mean other big market teams aren't facing the same issue but it does raise the question as to how.....how is this going to happen. The pipeline that has fed the Sox system for years has recently been re-routed to allow smaller market teams more money and access to pump their systems with talent. The international pool of talent has been one way the Sox had solved this issue in recent years, but they went a little too overboard and lost two years of signing players and the rules for the J2S period have changed as well. It will be interesting to see what the Sox do going forward, perhaps they try to trade more to build their system up. Perhaps they roll out with 2 DSL teams and try to find/develop talent through numbers instead of QTY. These are 16-year-old kids by the way. This seems to be the picture me and others have painted in the past when we've talked about a cliff! but perhaps the word cliff is a bit misleading and inappropriate as cliff implies we know what is going to happen. I suppose a better way to illustrate it would be to say we're driving down a road and rather than a cliff coming up ahead, the path has become very foggy.

Maybe, but he started last season in full-season ball so it wouldn't make much sense to hold him back this year unless something is up. It very could be very insignificant, and mean absolutely nothing, he very well may be up in Salem by the end of the week and pitch in one of the first couple games.

I'm wondering if he's hurt? or was hurt and got a late start to st so they're holding back a little while.

Things don't translate to the MLB level for many reasons. Sometimes the hit tool isn't developed enough for a hitters power to translate. Often a players lack of bat speed or recognizition of pitches can stop there hit obp and average from translating. A smart base runner who can exploit Milb catchers will be exposed at higher levels and thus his SB will not translate. This is why I think Scouting reports (the eye test) and stats go hand in hand. You need both. Results matter, but how they get results can sometimes tell us something about the hitters future. Gun to my head if I had to pick one MiLB stat to predict the future success of hitters I'd take OBP. A good plate approach tells me a lot about what a guy will do if he has the stuff to move to the next level.

I was just going to say Clay Buchholz, but he wasn't really a depth option to start the season. He was an A ball prospect with promise who took a huge jump forward during the season and shot up the ladder. No one would have guessed that in in spring training. The team did have other talent then as well but none were really close to the majors. Of course if Clay could have made that jump then hypothetically Michael Bowden and Daniel Bard could have too. I would also say that Brian Johnson may very well end up having a better career than Kason Gabbard. It would be nice to not have to pay to replace Pomeranz.

Is anyone still worried about Mookie????

Maybe not over the past year or so but 3 years ago he was a former first-round draft pick (well, he still is), your number one prospect, and looks destined to be your starting catcher.

Yeah, I've also wondered if trading him was the best solution as well. Maybe you start him in the minors (because he has no optins left) and if he's hitting really well and staying a healthy a team bites. You never know as well, he may end up being needed down the line. If that's the case, and he's still in the teams plans, I would think he should try a few new positions in the minors. 2B/3B/LF would be well for him, especially if he hits.

To be fair, how many people can remember the 5th/6th/7th/8th starter options for any team outside of it's present year????

Because he was one of the top prospects in baseball only a few years ago, then got jerked around and lost a year to injury. Now he's looking great again and is still young with a lot of promise?

Years ago Johnson was pegged as a guy with a high floor who could be a #4 starter. Not the sexiest profile, but that's exactly what this team needs right now. It would be really great to see that out of Johnson, for everything he's been going through and for what this team needs right now.

Moon, you know I know that. Forgive me if I didn't make my point well enough. Yes, teams are going after Machado next year, as well as Harper and others. That's why no one is spending this year. Someone is going to miss out next year on these guys....actually a lot of teams are. IF, and this is perhaps a big if, but if Hanley has a really good year there is going to be a team with the cap space, cash and need for a bat that will take a chance on Hanley if it costs them nothing but money. Now maybe I'm wrong, but if Hanley has a good year I firmly believe that.

You cannot compare this year's market to next years. They are completely different animals and I think you know that Moon. Teams are not spending this year because they're trying to reset and get prepared for next year. If any of these were free agents a year earlier or later they'd be getting a lot more money.

I forgot to subtract JDM money but I believe my point still stands. If that money is off the books then you're losing JDM along with Sale, Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Vasquez, Moreland, Hanley, Porcello, Pomeranz, and Kimbrell. Yes, I agree that not all those guys are going to be getting paid in arbitration, that is a GREAT point. However, it could also not break down the way you think. Those arbitration guys might not be getting replaced with pre-arbitration guys, they are more likely to be replaced with contracts signed in FA because the system doesn't have any real talent in it right now aside from several guys. For other guys to come up and take the place of the more expensive arby guys you need to have a strong farm system and that was 1/2 of my point. Our farm is extremely weak. EDIT: with your point in mind we can up from 3-4 premium players added over the next 3 years. If we're staying in house that means we can sign Sale, Porcello, Betts, and Bogaerts. But it's probably likely 3 guys because replacing a closer, a BOTRS, a few role players etc etc etc really adds up too. Perhaps an alternative term for cliff that might make it easier for some people would be "potential tricky roster construction ahead"

Cliff Theory: Here's the Sox lineup in 2021 without any moves: Rotation: Price EROD Jay Groome Bryan Mata Tanner Houck. You have two proven MLB starters there. One has been a little lackluster the last few years, on the wrong side of his prime and will be 35 in 2021. Erod is the 2nd best pitcher in this bunch and he could be good by then, but he's also had a hard time staying healthy as a youngster so he could easily be the next Clay giving you 15 great starts a year and then getting injured by the time he's 28. Best case scenario is he's your #1 starter, and while I think he has good potential, he's never going to be as good as Chris Sale. The next 3 are prospects who have not pitched above low A ball. Yes, they have potential, but even in a system that has a knack for turning out pitching prospects, more fail than succeed. If you're lucky two of those guys are MLB pitchers with one of those two being a servicable reliever. Without a clean bill of health and an unprecedented hit on prospects that rotation is going to need 3-4 more names in a couple years. The lineup: Swihart S Travis Pedroia Devers Chatham Aneury Tavarez Benintendi Cole Brennan Michael Chavis Call me a donny downer but I don't see Pedroia being a healthy contributor at 37 years old. The only guys who have confidence being good at this point in time are Benintendi and Devers. Maybe you get some luck with guys like Swihart turning it around and perhaps a guy like Brennan emerges but you are still likely going to have 4-5 big holes on the field. The bullpen: Matt Barnes is the only guy on this team who will still be there. The only real potential I see for a shutdown reliever in our system is Tanner Houck, but that means you also have one more definite hole in the rotation by then as well. Your payroll then is going to be $133. It could be more like arbitration rises. By my calculations, you have the capacity to sign 3 big time free agents over the next 3 years to fill these holes. But you will be losing: Sale, Pomeranz, Porcello, Vazquez, Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts, JDM, maybe even Price. You will also be losing Kimbrel, Thornburg, and Smith. In the minors you might replace one of these guys with this group of talent. You might get real lucky in the draft and get one college guy who can fly up the system in the mold of Andrew Benintendi or Jacoby Ellsbury. But you're talking about replacing most of your team with almost nothing in the pipeline and the money to only add a few premium guys. The cliff isn't a certainty, no one knows what is going to happen, no one knows how prospects will develop, future trades that will take place, who will sign an extension, and who will drafted. The "cliff" is just a different way of saying things don't look good. Without something extraordinary happening it certainly looks like the team from years 2021-2023 will be a lot less star studed than 2018-2020 will be. There could also be a huge bounce. The cliff could be a very real thing but you also might have a stacked farm again by the year 2021 and ready to rebuild a monster sometime in the 2022-2024 years. Maybe we win a world series or two over the next couple years, stink for a few years and then are competitors again. We don't really know. But the "cliff" is a real representation of the long term outlook of the system. Yes, we don't really know what is going to happen but talking about the cliff is a much better representation of the future than just shrugging ones shoulders and going "IDK...they'll figure it out" We're looking at the team in 2-3 years and looking at our system and weighing that vs. past precedent of how many prospects pan out and how often FA pans out. Without a lot of good fortune, the team has a big capacity to suck in a few years. At the end of the day, I'm not going to stress about a game, I'm going to enjoy the next few years, but the concept of a cliff is very real.

If there is one area the Sox are hoping to save money I'd think it would be hoping Smith and/or Thornburg could step up to replace Kimbrell.

If Hanley Ramirez has a season like 2016 again and his option vests he becomes tradeable. Teams are gearing up to spend big next year and someone who misses out on the big bats is going to have the money to spend to take a chance on him for one year. This is hypothetical and built on the basis that Hanley plays well enough for his option to vest. I also don't believe in looking at one player as a roadblock to not signing another (all things considered). It wouldn't be Hanley that stops the Sox from re-signing next year it would Hanley and Moreland, and Price, and JDM, etc etc etc. But again, I don't think Hanleys money is on the books for 2019. Perhaps some of you think he can hit with a .880 OPS and not be tradeable, I happen to disagree.

If Hanley puts up a .285/.340/.480 season a team will pay him for one year. We're talking about one year in a market that I'm certain teams are going to be spending the money opposed to this year. Even if I'm being a bit optimistic I'm sure we could get a team to eat the majority of it. I don't think this is a high certainty, but if that DOES happen, it's because he has a good season. If Hanley is having a good season alongside JDM in this lineup it might be worth it a thousand times over if the go to the WS. But I agree, that money could be put to much better use in 2019. Which is exactly why I'd shed it.

I agree. Where I was going with this is that I don't think Hanley should or will have his option vest unless he plays very well and steals at bats away from Moreland. If that does happen, I'm speculating we can move that 22 million dollars.