5GoldGlovesOF,75

Before this year, "flu-like symptoms" was the go-to excuse when a player was so hungover he had to be scratched from the lineup. Now "flu-like symptoms" can literally mean the end -- of a player's season, a team's season... even worse for some fans.

So for the Red Sox to make the postseason, all they have to do is just play as well as last year... when they were the seventh-best team in the AL? Or, as long as they're eighth-best? Pessimists may say they're missing 55% of their total victories from four starting pitchers -- ERod, Porcello, Sale and Price. Or that their remaining starters with the most wins are Eovaldi and Weber (they had two each). Oh, and they're also bereft of their best position player who led the team in Wins Above Replacement... every season for the last half decade; gone forever. But this is the time -- in non-green font -- to get on board the Peraza-Pillar-Arauz Era. Verdugo!

It's not wasted on me, because I'm here now to watch this season... but who knows if any of us will be here in 1-2 years (and that's not just a Covid or camo storm trooper political note). For me, as I stated in past threads, Red Sox year-to-year seasons are most entertaining when they're annual contenders. I know a few said they favored coming in last place three out of four years if there's a trophy mixed in, but the odds of that happening again have to be less than capping off three straight firsts with a ring. I'll take another 2016-19 over a repeat of 2012-15 any time.

Especially most young guys. They should offer $10M for 10 years to each of Duran, Dalbec, Downs and Arauz today. That kinda money at their age is what they've always dreamed of. Lock them up, there's your foundation for the next decade. Then invest the rest of the Betts' savings on about a hundred young arms (but not proven MLB starters, because any of them will want at least $20M per year... as if that's the going rate).

Nowadays, "always about the money" really equates to "actually, about the years". Star players in their primes want security, and who could blame them? So if the Sox want to stay competitive by paying their best player or signing the best free agent, they'll have to commit big bucks for a decade. Otherwise, be prepared for more goodbyes to guys like Devers, and to see pinstripes and Dodger blue on all future Lindors and Sotos. My worry is the past repeating itself, and instead of locking up true stars -- or waiting patiently for the right guy to become available, like NY and LA just did -- Boston will throw gauze all over gushers, and blow money on shorter term Pandas and Hanleys...

I never felt it was always about the money. He wound up signing with LA for the same AAV that the Sox offered. I always felt it was about getting out of Boston. He never ordered his agents to make a deal to stay, like Bogaerts. Mookie is now the hot ex-girlfriend... fun while it lasted, but there was always the sense he knew he could do better.

Well, the point is we all care about the team... which even the GM said wasn't going to be as good this season, about a minute after announcing the trade. Luckily, we only have to watch sixty games, instead of one hundred and sixty...two.

I appreciate all your comments. But as far as hamstringing the organization, I hope most people are referring to the luxury tax and reset rules, and not actual salaries. The Red Sox have always been able to splurge and afford what they thought were great players. They paid 30 mil per to Sale with a bad elbow, 30 mil to Price with a bad attitude, and offered 30 mil to Betts about to enter his prime. I certainly hope Bloom can rebuild a good team, but I also trust Boston will still try to lock up star players and fan favorites as part of the process. I can't identify with musical chairs; I can't even dance.

I did the math, so I'm not as depressed: 13 for $380 reportedly includes this year ($20M), so if it's really an extension of 12 for $360, then that's at the same $30M annual rate the Sox offered (10 for $300). This would at least confirm what I suspected, and justify trading him; Mookie didn't want to stay in Boston.

This whole news makes me ill. Betts is the best all-around homegrown Red Sox player since the draft began -- that's over half a century. If he's not the guy a rich team pays market value to keep for his entire Hall of Fame career, then no one is. I'll change the channel the day Cooperstown unveils his bronze plaque with an LA cap. Mookie is a role model for kids and a face of the franchise. Instead, we get to free up money to bid for the Trevor Bauers of the world -- Bauer, a guy who got pissed on the mound, turned around and threw the ball over the centerfield fence. The best Boston manager of all-time traded him the very next day...

The key is movement. If it's all heat but straight, like Eovaldi was last summer, MLB hitters rip away. But if he throws 100 with a wrinkle, like the cutter he used as a weapon in the '18 postseason, batters have no choice but to guess. Most unhittable pitching I've ever seen was a few years back in Baltimore, when I sat about 20 rows behind the plate on a Sale day. Fastball 100, slider 90-something, and his long sidearm lets go about halfway to the plate -- the human eye can't even see the ball until it's too late. Granted, the last-place O's were loaded with rookies, but they didn't stand a chance: 5 IP, 1H, 12K, and one hard hit foul ball that I swear was just a good guess (the pitch hit the bat's sweet spot).

I hope they're still here, but if Boston hits rock bottom and Bloom goes full rebuild, Beni and Vaz at their salaries may never be worth more on the market in actual prospect return or as part of a package for not-yet-primetime MLBers. In the same sense, I can see Bloom dealing JD -- who could opt out now that DH is universal -- to a team looking for a big bat in the stretch run... if they're willing to give up a decent future arm from their #41-60 man roster.

How about what's to come next? How many position players from the '18 champs will still be Red Sox in '21? I'd say only Devers and Bogaerts are sure bets...

... but basically half of the next contract of Cano, who was the other top second baseman at the time. Like I said before, you're not signing a really good MLB player unless it's with a long-term offer. Do we want to become an Oakland or Tampa, with rotating lineups every other year? As much success as they've had, how many postseason series has either won this century? And as a fan, I'm not really interested in rooting for rosters with constant turnover. Big money clubs had an advantage when they could outspend others on the most and best scouts, and stockpile prospects, but rules have changed. Like oldtimer points out, perennial contenders aren't getting top draft picks like the also-rans; thus, we have more tanking. Kimmi's model of augmenting homegrown clubs with a free agent (or impending free agent) is ideal; then again, how many Astro-type teams -- where lots of last places equal lots of No. 1 picks -- have found the missing Verlander to get them over the top? Dombrowski traded the farm to build a world champ -- and some Sox fans are still mad about it. But he did what he was hired to do: keep the young star group intact, and supplement them with veteran pieces by dealing from minor league depth. Bloom has a weaker core and little depth, so don't be surprised if he swaps what's left of the former for more of the latter. And be prepared to be patient...

Agree, agree, agree -- Epstein and co. hit big on the 2014 draft (I ate up that Speier book, btw) -- but when has current ownership never built around free agent signings? Who are the true success stories? I got Papi, Millar, Foulke, uh... JD. I'm not counting homegrown talent that re-signed or trade acquisitions who were available because of impending big money (like Pedro, Schilling, Beckett/Lowell). Now, what about the flops -- and that includes guys who helped win rings, but were either vastly overpaid or hated playing for Red Sox Nation: Renteria, Lugo, Drews, DiceK, Crawford, Hanley, Sandoval, and Price. What other big names with big contracts am I missing? If Henry and Werner are suddenly going to change their ways -- ones that flew four flags over Fenway (alliterally) -- then we diehards could be in trouble.

I agree, but after last winter, this regime looks like it's prepared to take a bucket of balls rather than risk losing even average guys walking away for nothing.

Current economics as structured in the MLB basically prevent teams from signing really good players for anything but long term contracts... agents and stars demand it (understandably), and there's always some rich and/or dumb team willing to give an extra year -- or five -- if they really want a guy badly enough. Maybe Boston recruited Bloom specifically to work his low-budget magic (not that they need it), because management has inside knowledge of upcoming -- let's not call it "collusion" -- but "market adjustments"... with a new CBA war looming.

You're probably right, unless they really suck and Bloom trades every guy who's contract is up: JBJ, Pillar, Moreland, Workman, JD (opt out), etc. But no pretender/contender will be dumb enough to give up much for a postseason run that may be shut down, unless they're low level unrated prospects.

I think if they're out of it, a guy like Arauz should play every inning somewhere on the field and get every at bat possible for MLB experience and development. We're going to see teams use a lot of young guys a lot in this sprint with few off days. It will be fascinating to see new stars emerge out of nowhere (and out of necessity)... some of whom may fade into oblivion by next year. Noah Song was the closest Sox pitcher to big league ready but who knows where he'll be in another year. One thing for sure -- if there was ever a season to lose due to military obligations, it was 2020... 2021 may be another one, for all we know.

I agree with this from a fan's standpoint -- but smaht organizations don't want to lose a year on the arbitration clock on prospects, especially since we're all non-paying fans this summer (unless you watch a game on TV and then rush out to buy a Chevy). If the Red Sox start out crappy and know they're going to suck, it's just a two-month slog... then they can build up the young guys all winter -- like Duran replacing Bradley -- for ticket sales next year. If there is a next year...

Maybe our new hero will be Jonathan Arauz! We now know it won't be Colin McHugh; apparently, he didn't see any mound time available in our loaded rotation.

I understand and have understood all the counter arguments. I'm just looking at history -- and specifically Henry/Warner history -- and unless they're planning on selling soon, it's inevitable that a combo of also-ran seasons and subsequent spotty attendance will see them overpay for some inferior players. Yes, ownership hired Bloom, but there's no way old rich guys are going to suddenly change expectations and all the tried and true strategies that won them four rings. Plus, as a fan, I really enjoy watching and identifying with homegrown prospects who grow into star players with Hall of Fame potential. Perhaps the next guy will be Verdugo or Downs or Wong, but that's more a longshot than the Red Sox signing someone like Lindor or Acuna or Soto in a few years. It's more likely Boston will acquire another big name who becomes an albatross.

You're right, and for the most part -- at least in Boston -- it seems like we do more absorbing than cheering free agent contracts; Price, Pablo and Hanley immediately come to mind, and there always seems to be someone we're paying to be somewhere else. The Mookie debate -- and we've already been over this all winter -- was if he was the rare kind of talent, athlete and personality you'd want to root for playing Hall of Fame hardball to keep your team in contention for the next decade. A minority of posters still say he is, but few dispute that the Red Sox, as much as any club, could afford him if they so chose. It will be interesting to see the next free agent market through pandemic adjustments. But if anyone still commands top dollar I'll bet on Betts...

Right, but what's the value of a Hall of Fame, face-of-the-franchise, on and off the field winner, for a brand in an entertainment industry? Even if we look at the bottom line that ostensibly generates the most revenue -- contributing to a winning product in the standings -- it's even debatable that three other good players are worth as much a rare talent like Betts. For example, in sheer analytics terms, Betts' 2019 WAR was worth 6.9 (and that was an average Mookie year). Three others who will be in high demand from his coming free agent class -- Starling Marte, Trevor Bauer and Kirby Yates -- combined for a 7.1 WAR. Would anyone pay 300 million combined for those three for the next decade?

What has always bothered me about Betts and "future spending" is that I guarantee the reset Red Sox will blow all kinds of money in a few years on free agent talent to fill voids in the lineup, in the standings and at the gate... and there's a 99.9% chance that none of those players will be as good as Mookie, on and off the field.