5GoldGlovesOF,75

... and telescope range, binocular range, drone range and satellite range. Tech isn't going away, and neither are signs and sign-stealing -- they've all been part of the game forever (but just getting more sophisticated). And the MLB knows this isn't a scandal and it isn't on the Red Sox or Astros, even if Manfred or Torre try to pretend it is. The quickest way to cut the crap is to cut the time away from espionage employees by enforcing a pitch-clock and batter's box rule: get in the f***ing box and stay there, and throw the damn ball. A pitcher's repertoire isn't a buffet menu, and the batter still has to hit the ball, even if he thinks he knows what's coming (which has always been the whole point of swinging in the first place).

I hope I am. But any new tech introduced and even deemed legal has just caused more delays and longer games. My dinosaur brain hurts from watching this: https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-discussing-on-field-wearable-technology-to-prevent-sign-stealing-185641614.html

All the batter's box delays and adjusting velcro on batting gloves before every pitch now have me suspecting these may be team-ordered to give personnel more time to scrutinize devices and crack codes. It always bugged me when Mookie took a first-pitch fastball right down the middle that he could crush... but maybe he was just being a team guy. It also makes me wonder the real reason Cora broke something that didn't need fixing, by switching Benintendi to leadoff. Maybe AC didn't want to waste his best hitter taking pitches, but that strategy backfired when Benny swung at a lot of first pitches -- and usually fouled them off to the left (unless he was supposed to...). So much pablum to blab about in an offseason lacking substance.

I'm not too tech savvy, so I have a question for anyone who might know: Besides the off-limits secret bat cave video rooms, aren't other alternatives constantly at the fingertips of players, coaches and team personnel everywhere in the ballpark? We always see guys looking at tablets in the dugouts, and it's a good bet most own the latest upgrades of smartphones... so why can't they just "pay attention to details" on those devices? Or are they all being monitored by other guys on laptops, desktops, ipads, ipods and iphones???

But JBJ was ALCS MVP because of exactly three hits he had with runners on base, when, allegedly -- since that's all this whole "scandal" really is right now -- the MLB was taking measures to make sure no one was viewing in the video room... hopefully, no one was listening in the audio room, or sniffing in the aroma room, either. I agree with the poster who points out that these are young men who grew up glued to technology. Telling them not to use it -- for any purpose -- would be like a brewery asking my high school football team to guard all the cases in the cold room... "You boys can go in there, but only if you promise not to touch anything."

I get all that and don't necessarily disagree. But Houston and Boston may both need to make splashes now to appeal to fans' emotional (and not so much practical) interests. They're both having uncomfortable offseasons -- and none of that matters if either club reaches its potential out of the gate in March/April/May... but that won't sell tickets in the winter.

The purpose of my post was to suggest a way for two franchises in need of a change to make a swap of quality for quality (instead of dumping a Hall of Famer for bad-contract has-beens or never-weres)... and to replace Betts with another All-Star with roots in New England who may want to play in Boston and sign on in '21. One blueprint for success is to try to lock up a solid core to build around that will keep your team in contention for years. Boston had that in 2017, with the thriller Bs, Devers, Vazquez, etc., but now that core may only be together for another year... if that. If Mookie won't re-sign but the Sox can sign Springer for five years, then that's a good position player -- along with Devers and Bogey, at least -- that they don't have to worry about for awhile. Bloom in Boston shouldn't have to keep transitioning regulars or platoon guys on and off the roster every year like he did in Tampa. He needs and wants to focus on pitching. What other available rightfielder would you prefer (I asked this in a thread a few weeks ago... and personally, I won't settle for any Pederson or Pollock)?

Telling people they can't look at catchers' signs in the video room is ridiculous; what, they're allowed to check replays, but they have to turn their heads if a catcher puts down two fingers? And if you do see an opponent's sign -- and decipher it -- whatever you do, don't tell any of your own players! And coaches on the sidelines and baserunners, make sure you look the other way, too. And gentlemen walking down the sidewalk, if a woman in a building you're passing is getting changed in front of a window with the shade up...

The more I ponder all the crap since the postseason, the more I think both the Red Sox and Astros need to make some kind of major moves to at least show their fans they're sincere about moving forward. Staying status quo -- or stagnant -- for either can project a stubborn look, like, "But we like who we are right now" (which they don't). So here is my simulator-accepted blockbuster: Betts for Springer and Urquidy. Houston probably can't sign Mookie, but who knows -- he may already prefer the southwest to the northeast. At least his salary drive season could bump the Astros to another title (they already won one without Cole). Boston would be able to reach its reset goal, and get the second-best free agent outfielder for 2021. Springer is from Connecticut and just might like to finish his career back home. He'll be 31 in September and cost a lot less than Betts. And getting a young pitcher with promise like Urquidy is as good as it gets at this point. A deal like this could be feasible for two clubs that need to make changes soon...

MLB.com posted its Hall of Fame voting: all six writers voted for Bonds and Clemens, with four for Sheffield. This is good timing for the media -- with many expressing such scorn and rancor at those who would steal signs, a covert practice that has been part of the game throughout its history. They all took a hypocritical oath. The amount of disdain professional scribes have for those they cover makes one wonder how badly they must be treated by the rich athletes. Either that, or it's a slow offseason.

I'm 99.99% certain everyone wants, but no one will get, Trout money. It's an icebreaker, a starting point -- or maybe the only Godfather offer that Betts would consider to sign an extension... sort of the reverse when the Sox lowballed Lester (or Mookie's version of a hometown discount, as in "Pay up or I'll discount staying home"). I can see his agents telling him if he's supposedly the next best thing to Trout -- and the latter got X amount in 2019 -- then Betts should ask for the same two years later (or when the bidding opens)...

"Especially when you consider that basically the same exact team was brought back for 2019 and had a terrible year without cheating" Right -- they looked just like Barry Bonds, after his head shrunk back to normal.

Boston should just be thankful to hosts New York, Houston and LA for supplying the tactical tech necessary that allowed the Sox to win seven postseason games on the road in '18. Imagine the combination of hospitality and cryptology the Yanks provided that let the visitors sneak 16 runs onto the scoreboard at the Stadium. Trolls are clamoring for Red Sox suspensions, and I agree. Fenway should make room to suspend more of these: https://cbslocal-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/anv-iupl/354/2C5/3542C546E22D4B70A6259038E3DBE48F.jpg

The big-market Red Sox were just lucky they could afford expensive technology. Unlike mid-market franchises that have to rely on trashcans. We need new penalties to tax the rich, and use the fines to buy laptops, tablets and iphones for all the poor clubs. Then all the teams would have access to the same resources.

Come on now. Everyone knows that cheating is the only way anybody can possibly beat the Yankees, and that NY is the only team in the entire MLB that would never do anything to try to get an edge. Just ask Arod, Giambi, Petitte, Knoblach, Sheffield, Brown, Stanton (but never Roger... even though his teammates said they were enhanced by his own personal trainer).

Thanks for the corrections, guys; I got my Arizona trades mixed... but as of today, Taylor > Marrero and Swihart (ps. I've seen Wilson play, and to my amateur eyes, he looks 4A). Re. lists, I love Devers, admire Chapman, and begrudge Bregman as a top 10 talent, but most observers have to agree that the best all-around combo of glove and bat at the hot corner is Arenado.

Another rule change that affected Boston after the Epstein days (but is better for MLB overall) prevents rich teams from paying overslot money for lower round picks that poor clubs would leave undrafted because they couldn't afford to them. I didn't have a problem with Dombro trading prospects to make the Red Sox better -- this is one function of the farm we miss most right now, after all... since Boston hardly ever develops star-level pitchers. And the position players he dealt were mostly redundant -- Margot in the OF, Dubon at SS, Shaw at 3B -- which is practical, dealing from depth. DD does deserve credit for being the one Bosox GM of the century to trade for a name closer (Kimbrel) who actually performed like one; the Thornburg and Smith trades backfired, but so did other guys' deals for Gagne, Bailey, Melancon, Hanrahan, etc. DD seldom made a trade that didn't work out, as far as reaping some benefits -- Eovaldi, Pearce, Nunez, Pomeranz, Reed, Ziegler, even Kinsler. And he always kept plugging away, despite the heat he caught -- how's Swihart for Taylor look now? From everything I've read from pro writers close to the scene, what got Dombro fired wasn't the big money contracts (that ownership always signed off on), but the way he alienated everyone else in the front office. But I'm not naive enough to think those disagreements didn't have a lot to do with stripping the farm.

Same problem with a lot of teams; almost every year with all 29 also-rans. Baseball is year-to-year for everyone, unless you're the 90s Braves with three Hall of Famers heading your rotation. The Sox need to rebuild farm depth, but they don't need to rebuild their MLB club.

The farm produced the best young core of MLB stars that ever won a ring for Boston this century -- six homegrown players out of nine that clinched the Series in LA (according to Speier, the last time a World Series champ had that many was the '84 Tigers). Dombrowski traded away none of them, and none of the other guys he did deal -- including Moncada, two years older than Devers at third -- are still not as good as the ones he kept... Too many get fixated on the notion that Dombro sold our souls for one championship because of last season. But re-signing the top two pitchers he swapped for -- before they turned 30 -- was the right move for a club shooting for more titles. It just didn't work out... for one year so far. As for the jettisoned prospects that actually looked or look decent -- Shaw, Margot, Kopech, and more lately Buttrey, Beeks, Allen, Dubon -- any GM would've made those trades if they knew it would guarantee a trophy. That's one of the luxuries of having a deep system... and one a lot of posters now lament because good depth is currently unavailable. But how many other teams have won recently with their own young cores? Houston and KC from tanking?

Don't forget Mookie's diminutive frame has also had three more months of aging breakdowns since last season.

Reverse psychosis won't work on Bloom, either. Keeping Betts, trying to resign him, and getting a draft pick if we can't is better than filling holes with more mediocrity this year. Like Notin says, there's not much left on this free agent market anyway. But there will be in the 2021 offseason, which the Sox can spend on with the $400 mil they save if Mookie leaves. NY smoked Boston last year, and Boston smoked NY the year before. Assuming all the Yankee breakout benchwarmers will repeat 2019 is akin to assuming all the Red Sox veteran pitchers will repeat 2018. With scenario is more realistic? There are new dynamics in the Bronx, with Torres at short, Stanton in the outfield and a new stater replacing German. Cole won 20 for a better team last year, while German won 18... The juggernaut lost German, Didi and Romine, and gained Cole. That doesn't seem like that much of an upgrade, realistically speaking.

I'll take my chances with the young core group about to enter its prime headlined by a future Hall of Famer. The reality is the Red Sox are not trading him for more piles to make 2020 easier for their mighty rivals.

It's going to be painful enough for Bloom to pull the trigger on a MLB-ready haul of actual good prospects for Betts, because such a deal signals punting 2020. That's about the only thing I agree with, to paraphrase one poster's cautions -- "people won't like the trade at the time, but it will work out later". I won't name names of these highly-touted youngsters that Bloom has to hold out for, but by now we're all familiar with them. I trust Bloom not dealing a Hall of Fame fan favorite for a washed up outfielder, an inconsistent bullpen arm and someone's 4th-best minor league pitcher. As for Price, he will be dumped for next to nothing (maybe even for a guy the Sox wind up cutting) and we'll move on.

Best quote of the weekend. Let's trade a Hall of Famer for mediocrity so we can free up money to sign more mediocrity; thanks for the tips, Yankee fans.

I am not without hap, but I will be if the Red Sox break up their still-young core -- that no GM traded in pursuit of a title -- that already helped Boston finish first three straight years... and is just about to enter its prime. That includes Bogaerts and Betts, who won two Silver Slugger Awards each by age 25 (23 for X)... and Benintendi, who at age 22 became the youngest Sox player to homer in a postseason game... and Devers, who broke that record the very next year at age 20. I'm not just a fan addict; I read and consider all the comments on several forums, and hope that I admit mistakes and can be persuaded to change my opinions. Since people here are weighing odds of likely outcomes, I say there's a better than even chance that Mookie, Bogie, Benny and Rafie all improve in 2020 (in one aspect or another; defense on the left side, overall play from LF, more consistent at bats from RF)... providing a solid foundation for a group looking to rebound from an offyear after the best onyear in team history. I give the following a worse than even chance to improve: Vazquez, Bradley, JD (all over or pushing 30, and maybe too superball reliant), and Chavis (soph slump, which began in frosh year). As for the Big Three starters returning to their prime 2018 forms, I'd say Eovaldi is better than even and Price worse than even. I'm also confident that Sale is still Sale, but can only say 50-50 because of injury concerns. Just remember that Sale was still dominant at times in '19 -- like the entire two-month stretch of May-June when he held opposing hitters to a .185 batting average; in those 11 starts Sale's record was only 3-2. His strikeouts to walks ratio for the season was 5.89, better than his career 5.37 -- which is the best in MLB history. If Sale had better run support last year his record could have easily been reversed from 6-11 to 11-6. Then, upon reflection, quotes would've changed from "Sale was a problem" to "Sale had a problem" (as in health)...