5GoldGlovesOF,75

There is no mocking the eye test when it comes to Duran. A year ago, when a few posters said he was a lousy outfielder based on scouting reports and metrics, I noted that I hadn't seen anything wrong with his defense in the few MLB games he played. But now we've seen plenty. Duran misjudges fly balls, pop-ups and line drives. I'd say it almost looks like he has vision problems -- did KC fans really throw bottle caps; what ballpark even sells bottles with bottle caps anymore? But vision issues don't excuse last night -- after he misread a liner, dove for the bounce, and bobbled the carom -- he threw home when the baserunner was about five feet from the plate, thus gifting the batter a waltz into second and scoring position... And Sam Kennedy says the Red Sox have big plans for Duran... did he mean the-band-the-band in concert at Fenway?

Wacha is back!

I actually have accepted WAR, even if the average fan cannot calculate their favorite players' "values" as fast as updating batting averages after a 3-for-4 game. But I'm also about qualitative data, so I accept there are non-statistical reasons factoring into player evaluations. It's maybe why Orlando Cepeda was voted unanimous NL MVP in 1967 -- even though three other position players had superior WAR totals. I certainly defer to the observers who voted in '67, even if they were beat writers who only saw Cepeda play in person the 18 times his Cardinals faced their assigned clubs... or maybe they had working relationships with others in daily contact with St. Louis, who could directly attest to Cepeda's value in the dugout, in the clubhouse, and on the airplanes as a difference-maker. As always, the MVP is a controversial award, based on individual interpretation, and trends. Half a century ago, catchers on pennant winners always seemed to fare well on the ballots, because their position is so vital in making a winner. It's hard to believe that concept has changed, and that there's more emphasis on batting stats -- especially since big league hitters are worse than ever, at least in making contact.

What would you do without WAR? Trust the MVP voters who actually watched guys play 40 or 50 years ago?

Ya, they're all playing with nagging somethings that have sapped their power. Pro ballplayers don't suddenly forget how to do something they know how to do really well -- unless something is preventing them from doing it.

I hate to say this - esp since someone is prob ready to type they're pros! -- but Devers has to be a non-issue, one way or the other, by Opening Day 2023. Devers' looming contract is already a big story among media and fans, and imagine after all the other Sox free agents are gone (or re-signed), when he'll be the biggest Red Sox story every single day thereafter, until he's either locked up or traded for prospects. The last thing the dugout, the clubhouse and the front office needs is to begin another season with an uncertain star.

Appreciate it. But can't you just see these guys sitting around a conference table in the winter, staring at powerpoints, and arriving at this conclusion: Look, since our intel says that none of these big money pitchers will be definites over time, we're better off splitting up what budget we have available to recruit as many maybes as possible, and -- oww, I think I just blew out my ucl scrolling this url...

Never, for 12 years of Betts. But since Price had to be included or no deal, getting a young MLB-ready regular in Verdugo was as good as it gets. Luckily, Bloom listened to me and insisted on Verdugo, even though most scribes (professional and talksoxual) suggested less attractive tradebait like AJ Pollock or Clint Frazier (good thing it wasn't the latter, since he no longer even exists on baseball.ref). Some can dispute this all day, but I'm in the camp that believes LA wanted Mookie so badly, that a good pitching prospect like Gonsolin or Gray might've been pried loose... if not for the Price cement shoes sinking the return.

We need to spend more of our top-6 payroll on rehabbing pitchers that we can't count on to make second-half comebacks to take the place of old reclamation pitchers we sign who break down after the first half. Sly big-market tactics.

Yes, pro sports teams are unique compared to other businesses. But how feasible is it that any of these clubs would take the risks that come with a big contract if they couldn't afford it? Has any modern team in the history of baseball paid out kajillions to one or two stars, who then suffered debilitating injuries (on the diamond, motorbiking, running over big screen TVs on bicycles, etc)... and the club had to close its doors, declare bankruptcy or sell the franchise because of it?

I also agree with this, and have posted before I think it's the company blueprint going forward for the next young Red Sox core. I just wish Devers was a part of the plan, but we all concede it's too late for him to fit that model. The Sox will find new sources of power, as always, but man, there have been few here quite like young Raffy. And I've been watching a long time...

This is the real issue, having to use the same relievers over and over to the point of burn-out. Eck keeps pointing this out. Others point to injuries for the lack of bullpen depth; some point to getting rid of Diekman, but not replacing him. Maybe Strahm returns to help while there's still time.

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm. A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom. Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

When it happened, the guy who traded him said they weren't. But you'll still get arguments about how the Sox were gonna suck either way in 2020, and that all the money saved on Betts was sunk into great signings (like two Wachas, instead of 10 Diekmans). How any part of a budget is specifically spent is all conjecture, no matter what; as if trading Benintendi's salary specifically allowed Bloom to sign Renfroe, instead of say, paying off a fraction of Price's contract to LA to make sure he no longer pitches in Boston. Teams have been locking up young stars at reasonable lifetime riches longterm since Cleveland in the 1990s. The Braves are getting done now, but the Astros and even the Yankees (with a few players) have retained part of their cores this way recently. For some reason, the Red Sox always seem to push lowball offers too late, and push favorites away, like Lester and Betts. Devers could be next. Bogey was an exception, but only because he wanted to stay in Boston so badly. Why do all our front office intellects assume every good player has the same love affair with Beantown...

Funny interview on MLB radio yesterday with Seattle closer Paul Sewald. He had three career saves before becoming closer last year at age 31... When Sewald was asked who makes the best set-up man, he replied, "A guy who pitches the 8th with a four-run lead, and gives up one run to set up a save situation for the 9th."

We all loved Schwarber's power and sure missed him this year. I'm also with you on Iglesias, an underrated from the '21 playoff push. He stuck around and cheered when disqualified from the postseason, and reportedly helped coach Arroyo on a key bunt vs. Tampa. That's the kind of dugout/clubhouse veteran no analytics can measure. I would welcome Iglesias back to Boston as the fill-in shortstop, and retain him as a mentor when the Mayer Era arrives...

Like the "head" doctor who made me wait two hours past my appointment time to check my concussion, and when I told him I get dizzy when I look down, immediately referred me to a neck doctor. After security escorted me from the large waiting room, where I advised everyone to leave while there's still time, I instead visited a neurologist... who laughed, and said my brain was misfiring, and prescribed some actual useful therapy.

They're all smart businessmen, but the fans who care more about the team than doing the wave and singing "so good" would love such a gesture. And that would make them smart baseball people... ... of course, there would still be a few in the media and on here who'd complain.

It's an educated guess, based on Bloom's history in Boston. He didn't spend to get a real first baseman because of Casas, and there's no reason to change now; Casas and Hosmer can handle 1B and DH, at least on a rebuild. And if there's one position Bloom loves to avoid big costs, it's the bullpen. He'll find a few decent guys cheap, and blow small bills on handfuls of others. But even if there ever comes a time when it's deemed as right to "go for it," does anyone ever see Bloom winning a bidding war with, say the Mets, for an Edwin Diaz?

Max, I know your main issue with the narrative regarding bullpens is with the designation "closer" and what constitutes "saves" and "blown saves." But I cringe every time you bring up the Sox' '21 postseason... because basically every Boston reliever failed at least once. Every game was a stressfest, even when they won: Whitlock gave up a bomb to Stanton; Barnes loaded the bases in one IP vs. Tampa and wasn't used again; Robles blew a 2-run lead via HR, 2B, 2B in one IP; Houck gave up a HR to Franco; Braiser blew a 2-run lead via 2B, 2B, 1B in one IP; Houck blew 2-run lead on Altuve's 2-run HR; Robles allowed a game-losing HR to Correa; Sawamura: BB, 1B, HBP, SF in one IP; Darwinzon: 2 HRs in one IP; Whitlock blew the lead on an Altuve HR in the 8th of ALCS Gm 4... and Boston never led again; then Braiser, Robles, Taylor, Houck, and Ottavino each gave up a run or more in the last two games. The bullpen was so bad that Cora had to use Eovaldi and Perez in back-end duty, and both starters also got lit up. Pivetta was a hero, but even he lucked out when Renfroe kicked Kiermaier's drive into the... yup, you know where. Bottom line is that the Red Sox relief crew was not good enough to take them to the World Series, unlike Houston's, which added better arms at the deadline.

Good points. My step-dad who played for money always preached team chemistry as the biggest difference between a championship team and other contenders. I could never quite understand how much that matters in baseball -- the sum deeds of isolated individuals. You can't block for a teammate or set a pick or pass the ball. Even if your line-up is comprised of sworn enemies only out for selfish stats, if successful, would'nt those hits and runs on offense, or outs and goose eggs on defense result in victories?

I never said that about the O's. Maybe they're just better adjusted pros. And from what many fans sense are players wearing Boston shirts going through the motions, maybe some of the Red Sox aren't. Yet.

Rob's been an ok fill-in, but is also a guy who has never started more than 37 games in his seven years in the bigs -- with a career sub-.700 OPS. We all know he wasn't the regular right-handed outfield bat needed to complete the roster at the outset of the season.

The wretched refuse of your teaming... sure. Give us Liberty to celebrate all things Raffy. Sincerely, Someone who remembers when Riff Raff was a wolf gangster villain on Underdog

Could it also be that anyone playing for Baltimore this century knows and accepts a lot more about the professional angles of being annual tradebait and tanking? Just saying: Red Sox players with World Series rings might equate being respected -- and disrespected -- a bit differently.