5GoldGlovesOF,75

There are just not that many catchers with Vazquez' wheels that can bat leadoff in the big leagues.

Even with her, he couldn't steal first base...

I'm not screaming, because I sense Mookie wasn't signing here, and know Price had to go; as much as this season sucked, imagine how much more fun it would've been having Price around folding all the cards, and mocking "Manager Ron" and "GM Brian" and "Officer Chaim". I just think it's unrealistic to think Boston will be better off without the longterm "burden" of paying for a Hall of Famer in his prime. Betts may well be less productive in the second half of his contract, but the next six years sure would've been better watching him win more MVPs for the Red Sox than for another team.

Graterol was a Twin.

I'm ok with Kiermaier, and not ok with Hamilton. I also think JBJ is going, going, gone and has been since he and Mookie knew they'd no longer be teammates. I'd welcome Taylor or Marisnick for a year, as well. It may be unrealistic to expect Duran to open '21 in the bigs, and even/if, not see him suffer growing pains that almost all young guys encounter in their first and moreso second years. Most rookies projected as starters the following year are introduced to the majors the previous September. Some, like Ellsbury or Bogie, help win titles. Even Fred Lynn, who won the MVP his rookie year, came up the previous September -- crushing it in 51 plate appearances with a .419 average and 1.188 OPS.

Count me as dumb then, because I wasn't surprised but am still aggravated Bloom couldn't get one Dodger arm for a Hall of Famer -- who again leads the MLB in WAR this year. Of course, I'll always feel the return would've been better had Boston not insisted on LA taking Price in the deal. For a franchise that has had trouble drafting and developing starting pitching this entire century -- granted, two whole decades so far -- right now I'd take the best pitcher available, even over a position player with higher "value" (which is just projections based on someone's numerical system anyway)... ... because the Red Sox have many holes, but the most glaring continue to be the ones that make up 75% of a baseball team (based on the old adage).

I'd be interested in all in the "others" column, and would rather sign, say Minor and Hendriks combined than what it would take for one of Bauer or Stroman. Ozuna loves to homer in Fenway, but he's a bad outfielder and a better DH (which we may need but can't afford for two more years). Lester would be a good veteran influence -- as a winner and mentor -- but I'd doubt ownership would give him enough to make up for his distaste with the way it ended in Boston.

All true, but his last year was a real drag in many ways (as chronicled ad nauseously). Statistically, it was probably his worst in Boston, and the worst stat for a spectator had to be the time between pitches -- entertaining it was not.

I suggested trading Vazquez in a package for an MLB starting pitcher and then signing Realmuto a few weeks ago. And the main reason is... ...Trevor Bauer. The best free agent starting pitcher available may be the wrong man for Boston at this time. In some ways, he is a right-handed David Price. Both will or were 30 years old beginning their big contract years. Each will have or had considerable mileage on their arms by that time; Price threw a few hundred more, but Bauer threw more long toss over the centerfield wall. And finally, each retains a penchant for being outspoken. In my opinion, the latter is one of the main reasons, along with a looming no-trade clause, that Bloom was ordered to dump Price. We know Price was borderline intolerable when the Red Sox were winning, and him holding a press conference to further diss Eck just when the team appeared about to go on a roll last summer was the final straw. What we don't know is how a guy like Bauer will react to the media, fans and clubhouse in a rebuilding season or seasons after the worst summer in modern franchise history. Maybe a safer bet to spend on is Liam Hendriks, the AL's top closer... depending on how much the few big market buyers are willing to invest in relievers this winter.

Nope, but I can about missing out on getting any pitcher from the best staff in baseball in a trade for someone who is now their best position player.

The explanation that is still confusing to me is that his medicals didn't profile him to be a starter, which is supposedly why the Sox wanted him. Meanwhile, LA uses him as an opener (a strategy invented in Tampa during Bloom's days there), while our openers -- most acquired or promoted since -- have been the bane of the worst pitching staff in Boston history this summer.

Some folks forget that for a few golden months in the title year of 2013, I'm-the-ace/he's-the-ace actually was the ace... before he got hurt. As for Eovaldi, I understand the disappointment in the number of innings he's provided since 2018, but I don't get why a team with historically bad starting pitching would ever want to get rid of a hard worker who 1) is still in his prime; 2) throws 100 mph; and 3) is a proven winner in the postseason and in Yankee Stadium. Eovaldi is exactly the kind of starter with elite stuff and credentials that the Sox should be targeting. And dumping his $17 million salary to reinvest the savings into another arm doesn't make sense, when a guy like Zach Wheeler with similar talents -- but no rings -- just upped the pitching market last year by signing for $23.6 million annually for the next five seasons.

He has the balance and hand-eye to win the batting crown. All he lacks is discipline (I won't call it maturity, because those terms aren't always mutual). We may need a new a thread: "Why won't Devers be traded?"

We're golden -- 18 year-old Nick Yorke has already been promoted to Pawtucket today.

Come on, you know they were just turning to the hooch in September, drowning their sorrows. Through August, it was all milk and cookies (wait, that's what the drunks were throwing when they got lit up that whole last month...)

So Manfred better also make sure that when the Rays win the 2020 World Series, that they split their winners' shares of cake with the 2019 Nationals... Right?

Why would you say that about Devers? I'd say it for JD, but Rafie has the hand-eye to rope just about any pitch in the rule book strike zone. He doesn't have to jump out of his shoes at neck-high fastballs.

There are many things that go on -- in the clubhouse, on airplanes, buses, in hotels on the road -- that the public never hears about. Many have to do with lifestyle choices, and that includes food, drink or other stuff that may be part of a training regimen or just something to get a guy through another night. But public perception is crucial, and when a ballclub chokes like the '11 Red Sox, and players "disrespect" their manager, then fingers will be pointed -- horizontally and vertically. Tito's father-son relationship with Lester may or may not have been scarred, but no one really complained when changes were made; except when damage-control made sure to kick Tito on his way out the door. Bet that's something that doesn't happen in every city, according to the likes of AJ -- voted the most hated MLB player by his peers (for, like Canseco, telling it like it is?). What most fans expect out of their players is that they just bust their asses when on the field (like we think we would, if we could). Constant hustle is why we loved Mookie or why Verdugo and Munoz would be cheered the loudest if we were there. It's why it's so vital to have young guys in the lineup trying to make a name -- and a buck; being accountable to spectators is also what's missing the most for the veterans. Do you think Devers may be a bit more focused and selective if fans were in the stands booing every time he hacked and missed at a pitch in his eyes? The scores don't matter, no one's in the park, so the guy's just playing home run derby in nightly "BP" sessions...

I was ok with letting Lester go because his body language to me looked like he could use a change of scenery (but it may have just been his frustration of getting lowballed for admitting he'd take a discount), and he partook in chicken and beer... however, I was not ok with giving more money to Price to make up for it. I didn't like Price mouthing off about Papi's HR trots after serving up gopher balls or that his ERA always soared in the postseason. Red Sox history will always show that Price did indeed pitch three great games in one October title, but also that Jon Lester won twice as many postseason games and twice as many rings. And then he won again in Chicago.

I'm close -- maybe not liking -- but definitely rooting just as much (Seinfeld laundry theory). But as much as I cheered for Armas, Hendu, Burks, Everett, Damon, Crisp, Ellsbury and JBJ, none were as good as Freddie Lynn...

We're living it this summer, but it's not Rafie's fault, nor would it be Mookie's, whether he was making $27 million -- which the Red Sox agreed to pay him -- or horrors, $30.4 million (his average annual salary when the LA extension kicks in). Just looking at this century, the only superstar fan favorite Boston really let walk was Pedro ((for Manny and Nomar, most would agree, it was time to go). Martinez, many suspected, was on or soon-to-be-on the downside of other-wordly; at the time I wished the Sox gave him one more year like the Mets did, but history shows that was an overpay. Fans love stars, but everyone prefers a winning team. I've seen blogs arguing that position-by-position, the '75 Sox had better players than the '18 Sox, but to me there's no doubt that the latter is the best club in franchise history... as defined by total wins in the regular, and strength of comp in the postseason ('04 will always be the greatest, but that adjective has different criteria). I loathe last place, am realistic about ever winning a ring, and all I can ask for is an annual contender -- and how entitled is that. But before this century, the Red Sox were always pretty good: since 1967, 25 winning teams in 30 years, only one in last place. Since '04, there have been four titles and four doormats (including this one) for the bottomsy-turvy Schizophrenic Sox. Wish they would make up our minds! I know economic landscapes change, but I don't think this ownership will ever stop spending big, nor stop giving out $30 million dollar annual salaries -- like they already gave Price, Sale, and reportedly offered Betts. And unless the pandemic or collusion drastically changes the market, I totally expect another longterm contract -- for someone not as good as Mookie -- in Boston's near future. When I cite the cost of mediocrity, I don't mean total suckitude like '20... just a team missing the playoffs like '19 and becoming even more irrelevant in a region where sports talk radio doesn't even discuss them when they're winning 119 games.

Maybe, maybe not. But just look at how many wins Tampa and LA have had... in this century's most-days-in-first-place, non-crapshoot seasons.

Say Bloom achieves his goal of "sustained" title contention by hitting on low budget pick-ups like Arauz, Munoz and Arroyo, who all develop into above-average regulars (and by spitting on the proverb "you get what you pay for"). Will he then trade them for prospects whenever one nears big money status? Are Red Sox fans ok with recycled rosters every couple years, as long as the transitions don't disrupt the standings too much? If so, enjoy Devers while you can, before he turns 27...

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum. There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent? This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

I haven't seen you pitch, but Houck was pretty good... he could get a win in his debut (if the bull-cough- bullpen comes through). Perfect hit by JBJ; too bad Vaz is such a load, because anyone running on contact with two outs should be able to score on a ball down the line that reaches the wall.