5GoldGlovesOF,75

Please retract this asap before someone in LA sees it! Or at least delete Betts' name!!! The last thing we need is past-his-prime Pollock, no hit lefties/no field Joc and half-cooked Jansen (who LA won't even use in big spots anymore). I know you were just trying to make numbers match... and the total of all five of your Sox on that site probably don't add up to just one of Lux, May, Verdugo or Ruiz -- but I have faith those are the types that Bloom is demanding in some combination or no deal.

I'm talking 15-20 years from now, when most voters on that Veterans Committee would have either played in an era when the majority of guys did some kind of PEDs or they did them themselves.

I think guys like Schilling, Clemens and Pettitte will eventually. While Ryan was an automatic, Blyleven and Morris took a long time to get recognized. Give the old school voters credit, though on Ryan. He went 8-16 in 1987 and still finished fifth in the Cy Young. It wasn't like they were just picking big "winners" ahead of him, either; two guys above Ryan had records of 13-9 and 16-16, and a reliever with 5 Ws won it.

Good pitchers make teams good; it’s not usually the other way around. Ballplayers will tell you there’s much value in a starting pitcher that teams have supreme confidence playing behind. This isn’t necessarily something measurable, when other stats like ERA, WHIP and FIP can also be rendered meaningless, depending on approach. No formula can calculate a man’s mindset if, for example, he has a big lead and decides to pitch to contact instead of straining for strikeouts or pitching around star hitters. I’m not a Jack Morris fan, though I know there was controversy in his recent Hall of Fame selection. Morris threw for some good teams, but in high-scoring games only his teammates know for sure if he was missing his spots or just lobbing them in there, trusting his borderline-Cooperstown DP combo and Gold Glove centerfielder. Old school fans would expect a pitcher that led his decade in victories to eventually get enshrined on a bronze plaque. Some would debate Morris had mediocre stats, but he also had the reputation of being able to win no matter the situation – be it a 1-0 World Series Game Seven or a 10-9 slugfest. To me, the best data for Jack Morris is reflected in the number 3. That’s how many different franchises that went on to win world championships wanted him on the mound to start Game One of a World Series. That’s the sign of a true ace.

Modern analytics dismiss pitching victories – at least in awards voting -- but stats for individual player contributions still use the word “Win” in their titles, like WAR, WAA or WPA. Can anyone New School clarify? I played with one pitcher who, when discussing opponents, would say, “I beat them.” And I always corrected him: “You mean, we beat them.” Nowadays, thanks to pitch counts and bullpen games, the workhorse starter is an endangered species. Certainly, with the use of openers becoming widespread, scoring rules for win eligibility need to be revamped. So, is there still such a concept as a winning pitcher? If we're not going to use numbers, can we at least still use the words "winner" and "loser" as adjectives? For example, when it comes to facing the Yankees, especially in Yankee Stadium, am I wrong to call Eovaldi a winner and Price a loser? That's what I saw in 2018 and even Spring of '19 (before Braiser blew the Gardner game). I'm also thinking Eovaldi > Sale vs. NY, at least last year. We like to be able to count on a guy to nail down wins in tight games, and throw shutdown innings after the offense scores, especially after taking the lead. We’ve also witnessed hurlers with great numbers who sometimes seem to pitch just good enough to lose. But is it all just random… or myths… or can qualitative data actually show trends?

I agree and have never expected the Sox to not go for it in 2020. That would be totally out of character for these owners -- and like I said, old guys don't suddenly change. I know with the way Boras and free agency drags now that offseasons are basically cold stove leagues, and so we blab out of boredom about tax penalties and resets and trading star players. Yes, the Sox brass has mentioned finances, but of course those could just be calculated comments in one phase or another of public negotiations or a way of tempering contract expectations... or someone just voicing impulsive exasperations about current market prices. And like you say, even if the front office even wants to cut back, it cannot afford the hit with fandom. Changes will be made, because no change would be unacceptable, but the tanking that Yankee fans hope for will never happen in Boston under this or any ownership. Bloom's goal of building his "sustainable" competitive franchise will encompass not only stockpiling legitimate prospects, but also locking up established young stars with whom fans already identify. As a Red Sox fan, I expect that and demand that.

Not sure if I totally believe anything the spin doctor says. Remember when he agreed to do an interview about why the Red Sox didn't hold a presser to announce DD's firing... and never actually answered the question? As for Sale, I think no news is not good news. If there were problems or setbacks, Boston wouldn't go public, lest any potential trade partner gleans desperation and ups their demands (and I mean potential trades for other pitchers -- though it would also obviously affect any Sale trade options).

Not the whole 96 -- "less money to eat" still means we'd have to subsidize the deal. But I don't see anyone of value coming back, and if we do have to take someone else's bad contract, so be it... as long as it's less -- and what wouldn't be, compared to the most expensive pitcher in MLB history (no thank you very much, DD)/

Dalbec or Chavis are enough assets to get Price gone, but don't expect anything good back... except less money to eat.

Pear shape, as in grow a pear...

Certainly a possibility, but the adjustment period in a win-or-else market could be another reason why the Yankees may not be quite as good in '20. NY only had two defensive standouts -- Didi and Judge -- in the past postseason when D was an issue... and that tandem may soon be cut in half.

That's too bad, because according to experts, your size means you're apt to break down sooner than us bigger typers.

Great hitter; not as good as Didi at short... another key position where defense wins titles. Granted, Bogaerts never looked as good as Didi, either. Lugo definitely wasn't, Drew and Cabrera were maybe just as solid. But I'm sure someone can dredge up some statistic to tell me what I was seeing wasn't what I actually saw.

Yankee fans I talk to also know they won't win a title with Sanchez behind the plate, they're stuck with Stanton, and their lineup is righty-heavy. Schwarber would be a perfect DH in Yankee Stadium, but luckily Epstein knows that and wouldn't want to be responsible for putting him in pinstripes.

Again, imagine the perceptions of Porcello or Sale if they got ERod's run support in 2019. Porcello won 14 games as it was; what if he won another three and was a 17-game winner again? Sale went 6-11, but there were several games in the first half at least where he pitched good to great and took the loss or no decision. It's not too much of a stretch to say -- with ERod's run support -- that his record could have been reversed. If Sale had gone 11-6, then folks might lament that he had an injury-shortened offyear, and not worry that he suddenly sucks and will never be good again.

I understand the risks. But if the Sox keep Betts, I expect to have a great time watching him in 2020. If Joc Pederson is playing rightfield instead, I fully expect 2020 to be not as great or even good, and most likely frustrating, wasteful, divisive, and demoralizing. But Yankee fans will have a great time watching that.

Agreed, unless Bloom can move Price or Eovaldi. Then signing Porcello for those guaranteed innings becomes more important and more affordable. Porcello was painful to watch last year, but so was Rodriguez (leading the AL in bases on balls). ERod was good compared to our other starters... but imagine the perceptions this offseason if Porcello or Sale had received the best run support in the league last season, instead of ERod...

That's ok, if no May and some combo of Ruiz/Lux/Verdugo, then no Mookie. This writer echoes exactly the kind of return I expect the Sox and Sox fans to demand. Otherwise, we keep our star status quo for 2020. And I don't want anything to do with Joc Pederson, either -- the HR derby winner on BP meatballs, who can't start on a contender's outfield. Boston has enough lefty-hitting outfielders who can't hit lefty pitching, and Joc is even worse at .188 career.

I don't think he shows up here, because someone will offer him a two or three-year deal, and at a price worth a lot more than 25% of his last salary. Porcello was bad in 2019, but led the world champions in victories and innings pitched just two years ago. A guy who averages 15 wins and 200 innings for 11 straight seasons will have value to a lot of teams not in the Cole/Stras sweepstakes.

At the turn of the century I was at a funeral and actually heard a man say in the eulogy that he was happy for his late mom, a Yankee fan, because she would never have to live long enough to see the Red Sox win the World Series. Before the ’19 playoffs, an oldtimer in a NY cap stopped at my family's booth in a diner -- he saw my son's Sox shirt -- and started giving my 8-year-old the business. Glad that man's world was back on its axis… but gotta wonder if he viewed the entire season as a failure after Altuve’s HR.

Starting pitching. As much as Bloom and Tampa have redefined pitching staffs (initially for small market clubs), at least Washington just reminded everyone of the value of starters. On a tangent to Moon's idea -- with a nod to Notin -- the Red Sox standard-bearer is the '04 rotation, with five guys staying healthy to make at least 29 starts each; it was 15 years ago, but I bet everyone on talksox can name them all without going on baseball-reference... Boston only had two pitchers start at least 30 games last year, which explains part of the problem -- but staff durability was never a Sox trademark even when winning three divisions in a row. The best was '17, when three made at least 30 starts; '16 and the great '18 team only had two apiece. BTW, Porcello has made at least 27 starts in every year of his career, over 11 straight seasons. Obviously, it's unreasonable to expect any modern rotation to get lucky enough to start 97% of its team's games like the '04 champs. But the '19 Nats had four guys make at least 27 starts. An overworked Sox bullpen broke down last year (even though there are still guys I never want to see in the 9th again, even on full rest). But it all comes back to starters. We all know that acquiring veterans is costly and too risky. It's time to develop some, and I really think this will be Bloom's forte. Expect to see some openers early, but hopefully only as placeholders.....

I think I get it now: guys who were considered aces in the MLB, most before even playing for Boston. Lackey and Price never threw like aces in Boston... except for one postseason each, when it counted most. Lonborg was only an ace for one season, then got hurt... but a Cy Young winner throwing one-hitters in the World Series is legit. The outlier -- as far as equating recognition with reputation -- has to be Porcello, who even when he won the Cy was never considered an ace. Though regarding depth, he was arguably the Sox third best starter/rover in the '18 postseason, just ahead of Sale.

I agree with your premise, but might debate the second aces or missing number twos... though I'm sure you considered guys like Rick Wise, DiceK, and Buchholz in '75, '07 and '13. They were all solid and at least 2-worthy in the regular season -- Wise won one more than Luis and had virtually identical numbers; DiceK was the legendary ace of Japan and actually the Sox top winner in '07/08; Clay began 9-0 and was the Sox All-Star pitcher before getting hurt. I'd include Wakefield, too, but they kept moving him to the pen and even left him off the '07 WS roster. The guys on your list were no doubt aces (including Lackey as an Angel) and most turned it up a notch in the postseason. On that tangent, I have to agree with posters about Hurst, but then I'd also add Eovaldi -- who I'd argue was Boston's most valuable postseason pitcher in '18. Having two horses is hard to beat, and looking at those years I also think starting depth was the difference in getting to the World Series (as opposed to other division winners or wild cards who fell short). Number three guys like Spaceman, Oil Can, DLowe, and Porcello were probably better than most number twos on all those Sox also-rans. That's all. I just like researching to kickstart the offseason... before they actually make some moves.

In the '04 offseason, the Boston brass toured New England with the World Series trophy. One scheduled stop was at a town green, where I was in a group of about a hundred people. No one gloated or carried on -- it was more to marvel at something we'd never seen up close before. At the back of the crowd a grown man showed up wearing a full, pinstriped Yankees uniform, cap to stirrups, #2. I don't think he was joking because he never smiled; it wasn't Halloween, but he was creepy. I wondered what possessed him to feel we needed such a reminder.

Having the best pitcher in the game making starts every five days sure made it seem like we had a chance to win titles for six or seven years. It felt that way through Clemens' first seven years in Boston, too. And Sale's first two...