5GoldGlovesOF,75

Price or Eovaldi and JBJ won't do it? Isn't the payroll number the MLB looks at the same at season's end as the beginning (I understand that acquisitions can alter it, but with additions also come subtractions?)?

I totally agree with this. I can't imagine he'd agree to do the company a big favor by transferring his office to another part of the country for six months only to come back next winter. A club that once fought him -- and lost -- on arbitration should now bend over backwards to accommodate Betts all season if they want him to re-up.

I think the Sox reset by the end of the season, so they won't be taxed $100 mil and lose draft picks when they back up the truck for Mookie. Then they'll have another couple years or a new CBA before they have to worry about resetting again.

I just keep going back to the law of averages -- and this -- how many fans and experts expected the Red Sox to contend a year ago? And now, how many expect them not to? I hope most would admit and remember the answer to the first was just about everyone. This season Boston returns the same basic group of talented regulars and starting pitchers that set that franchise record for wins just two years ago. Forget 108, but not even 90? It all comes down to the mound... some point to '18 heroics from Sale, Price and Eovaldi and hope for more; others look at injuries from '19 and predict even less. Is it unreasonable to expect something in between? After all, the Big Three has averaged a combined 39 wins per year in their careers (including last season's MASH unit when they combined for only 15). Don't forget the Red Sox won 93 in each of '17 and '16 -- the former with Price on the DL, the latter with Sale pitching for Chicago. First base lost its combo of All-Star/WS MVP (for now). Second base has been an issue-- at least turning the DP, since DP himself has been out. The Sox also lost some valuable arms in Kimbrel, Kelly and Porcello -- none are as good as they were, but all are casualties of constricted payroll... which has prevented replacing them with name pitchers. Less glamorous alternatives are a facet of roster refinement that Sox fans are just not used to under current ownership. This is where we'll have to wait and see, and trust in Chaim Bloom... and not doom and gloom. Pitchers and catchers are coming soon -- even if we don't recognize them!

Say the Sox start strong and play about 10 games over .500 through July, enough to stay in contention for a playoff berth. Which would you prefer: Bloom "buying" at the deadline, maybe for one more starter or back end reliever, or promoting from within? It may depend on whether a team is just trying to qualify for the postseason or making an actual run at a ring... Strength of competition also has to be considered; is someone running away with the division? A final factor for this Red Sox squad is the chance it may be the last hurrah for the current core...

Eight pitchers, mostly relievers! Bloom is obviously preparing for the new three-batter minimum rule... get ready for a couple three-man rotations: starters, and then openers/middlers/and twiddlers.

February starts a week from Saturday and what you see is what you got. The Red Sox didn't make any major moves, hung on to all their good players, and this is what they're going with. But I choose not to judge them based on one mediocre year, even if it is the most recent season, to convince myself things are going to get worse rather than better. My optimism is based instead on the larger sample size of the past half decade of accomplishments from Boston's professional stars, along with the potential to improve of those not yet in their primes... Which prediction a year ago would have seemed more unreasonable: that a team that finished first three years in a row would limp into third place in 2019?... or... that a team that finished first three years in a row, then limped into third, would bounce back to contention in 2020? Who knows what the Red Sox roster will look like in '21 (I just can't see how anyone can think the Sox are going to be able to replace their top players from the best club in franchise history and actually improve). I'm focused on 2020.

He has and they do... With impending draft pick penalties, there are two ways to approach 2020: 1. Crank instead of Tank; and in the process finish as high as possible, so losing a pick beyond the Top-20 won't hurt as much; 2. Crank, but if by July it Stank... then make trades to replenish the farm. Just don't expect Bloom to gut the roster and swap dollars for nickels; the Red Sox may renovate but they'll never rebuild.

The Red Sox are the team with the best chance to win with Mookie in 2020, because no one else will be acquiring him (unless they're willing to give up what he is worth to Bloom and Co.). And the Red Sox chances would be way worse without their best player. Cheer up, fans. Boston has solid players in their primes in six out of eight positions on the field, the best DH, a couple of headliners in the starting rotation, and an industry innovator about to stamp his bullpen brilliance all over the Nation.

What's been ridiculous -- all offseason -- by writers everywhere, are the trade proposals for the second-best player in baseball. b-WAR 2014-2019: 1. Trout 52.5; 2. Betts 42; 3. Donaldson 35.9 Bloom better be asking the world for his all-world player. What I'll always consider ridiculous is how anyone can value unproven prospects over established stars; if your goal is to win the World Series this year, I've got the top rightfielder in the majors right here... if your goal is sustained contention now and in the future, my guy is 27 and about to begin his prime... if you want a quality All-Star you have to at least give up a quantity of maybes... (and then your team just got way better, while mine got way worse -- but if some of those prospects develop, wahoo -- we might improve again... someday) What's likely is that some teams that would love to make a splash and add Mookie know they can't afford to sign him in a year, so it's not worth it to trade anything good. The same probably goes for teams that can afford him and plan on bidding in a year; why trade anything now, when they can just use cash later? So the team with the best chance to win with Mookie in 2020 already has him.

I didn't realize Perez was Houston bench coach in 2013 -- the last person the Sox want taking over would be a former Astros coach (as unfair as that may be). There's definitely a contrast between Houston's and Boston's managerial searches; the Astros seem to have different candidates or interviewees listed on MLB every day now, while the Sox have maintained radio silence. It could be they're going internal or they already know who's in charge and are choosing not to announce it yet. I'd be surprised if they hung an "interim" label on a hire... it would be hard to take them seriously about moving forward while using a term for "temporary" (this most likely needs to be longer than a few months of Morgan magic or Torey Lovullo). I'm ok with Tek -- always expected him to be the first to manage from the '04 squad (at least over Roberts and Kapler)... though for some reason I can't explain I sense Lowell may command more respect from this current roster.

I did find this Spock quote: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sounds kinda relevant... Now for something completely python: depending on MLB's verdict on the Red Sox -- not on Alex Cora -- does anyone here think there is any possible chance that Cora works again someday for Boston? Follow-up question: might there be others in the industry already speculating (based on the adoration for AC that all Sox owners and front office men voiced at last week's presser, as well as weekend quotes from current players and coaches, plus the cryptic words of Mike Lowell)??

I have stopped beating my wife -- at Wheel of Fortune; she's better than me at word puzzles. And I don't remember that Star Trek episode... believe it or not.

If I told you I always lie, then how could it possibly be true?

Jax and notin, two good reasons for the difference in K rates. Another option: good batters focus more on pitch selection when trying to drive guys in, and maybe guess more or swing more from the ass for a solo shot with nobody on... (Slash's names were all top or heart of the order men; Moreland was even an All-Star in '18). The Red Sox road dominance in '18 is what really invalidates all the whining from CC, Bellinger, and the city councils in NY and LA. Unless there is some newly nefarious info about to be revealed in the Boston investigation, all we know now is that the MLB took measures to assure no video edge in the '18 postseason. You know, the one where the Sox went 8-1 on the road and became the first away team in history to clinch three series against Cy Young winners (Sabathia, Verlander and Kershaw)...

Manfred copped out not punishing players, but we all know why -- the old school saying when managers get canned: "you can't fire the players" (basically, because nobody pays to see skippers skip). Regarding notin's analogy to steroid guys missing Cooperstown "on the first try" -- would it surprise anyone that there just may be some users no one even suspected who are already in? Would it be so surprising, then, that people will someday forgive the fallguys for these evil video days? How's Arod doing lately? Even another two-time suspended PEDer -- Manny Ramirez, who once pushed a 64-year-old team employee to the ground (not even the despicable AC did that) -- is starting to come around again, as are some of his admirers.

Or adolescents glued to screens... or old guys unglued because of screens...

Ya, that always works. You just lost all credibility with anyone under 30 (wait -- Alexa, how old is Siri?)

Try explaining to kids of the video age that the MLB says it's ok to "steal" signs by looking with your eyes, but not ok by looking with your eyes at video.

Some are positive their opinions are facts, especially about labels. Mine is that there are a lot of grays in games where one side tries to beat another, especially when the rules keep changing. I had someone who doesn't play baseball argue with me that it was ok for a batter to detect if a pitcher was tipping pitches for his own at bats, but it was conspiratorial if the batter went back to the dugout and revealed the info to all his teammates...

I scoured the internet dictionaries for definitions, but nothing cited technology within the context of a professional sports milieu... The commissioner supplied all teams with video, which he said was ok to use to look at the past and the present, but not for the future. A lot of guys still used tech in the past to look at the then-present for the future, which they're paying for now in the present... but you can bet tech will continue to be used in the future (and don't be surprised if some of these present scapegoats will be back in the future). It's convoluted, because the only thing black-and-white about this whole issue is Manfred said stop, many didn't, and he's apparently making an example of a few that won. Curt Schilling recently said, "That system would have made me easy to face in October" -- which is understandable, and I'm not defending the use of video. But Schilling also once defined good pitching as "deceiving batters to take strikes and swing at balls." I'm not a Cora apologist; he chose not to follow an edict and paid the price. But I am a baseball apologist, in that I acknowledge the game has always been about secret codes and deception and seeking an edge -- everybody does that -- and I can't imagine that ever changing.

Had a long debate with an educator concerned about the culture of baseball being a bad influence on kids. My problem is that she kept repeating the word “cheating” about aspects I have always accepted as part of the sport. My point is that sign-stealing – in all its forms – is inherent and will always prevail in baseball. Pitchers and catchers have secret codes, so the offense tries to break the codes to be better prepared to try to succeed. Remember, the defense is also always trying to swipe signs – they want to be better prepared to succeed by knowing when a batter may square around to bunt or when a baserunner may attempt to steal a base (that the latter phrase has been part of baseball vernacular for over 120 years shows how confusing this team sport may be to non-fanatics). Last summer we heard Alex Cora use the phrase “pay attention to details”. Everybody in the dugout is taught as a teenager or even younger to always study the pitcher or watch the base coaches for a reason. It’s curious that no public apologies have yet come from Cora, AJ Hinch or Carlos Beltran. Their former employers say all these guys are sorry, but only for embarrassing the clubs by disregarding the commissioner’s orders (and let’s face it, for getting caught). Notice how no one has apologized for trying to do what even the MLB says is still ok (as long as it’s not done with live video)? Could it be because they actually don’t think what they did was wrong – because of their lives as ballplayers, and what they know about so many others? By the end of our talk, we each could see both sides; she had me questioning the intricate language system of our pastime, but she also wondered if “cheating” is a poor choice of words…

On a tangent that has nothing to do with signs -- just sighs -- the Sox had to be one of the worst in '19 with guys on third and less than 2 outs. At least it seemed that way all season.

I totally agree. But by not penalizing players, he's inviting problems this year from pitchers -- they're the ones who're really pissed. Be prepared for headhunters, beanball wars, ejections, more suspensions, and maybe some unfortunate injuries (usually not so much from guys hit by pitches, but peace-keepers trying to break up fights). The Astros better be prepared to come to the plate wearing full medieval armor...

I still don't get how a pitcher can intentionally throw a lethal weapon at a batter's head and only get a five-day suspension, but if players steal signs -- which the MLB says is legal, except on video -- the team's management gets at least a year-long suspension and fired. In his attempt to clean up his sport, Manfred's overreactive sentences have unfortunately given baseball too much negative publicity. I find it odd that the three baseball managers he got rid of are still loved and respected by players and peers (and in the Sox' case, owners) -- am I the only one who finds this reaction at least curious? Shouldn't this trio of bad guys be scorned throughout baseball by more than just some professional and amateur writers who apparently have never made mistakes before in their lives? I'm ignoring CC Sabathia, whose own team is also under suspicion. Taking away top draft picks would've been punishment enough to ensure this stuff ended. But now Manfred's entertainment product is without three personalities who were popular within the industry.