drewski6

Or a contract that has short term < 3 years, but has fallen underwater and a sweetner for taking the bad contract.

What about without Murphy?

honest q: what are the chances that Bres is one and done? Do we try Ryan Lavarnway next?

Maybe we need to rehire the guy who called him a f'ing stiff

Thats some data right there

Meet the new boss, exactly like the old boss

This is fair, Campbell kind of rocketed through the minors and that comes with drawbacks.

Wrote my post before seeing this one. Agreed on park factor.

If we adjust for park factor, its even more than that! SF park isnt very hitter friendly.

Great article, the Hunter Pence comparison to KC was needed after watching NESN last night and the talking heads worried about the team ruining KC. I dont like that talk, I think its far too pervasive, personally. I think its possible for a team to ruin a bright future star, but I think its rather tough. But if KC is like Pence, then that may take a little more time because the thing about Hunter was how far they'd go when he caught one, so KC may need more reps, pitch recognition, timing to increase his barrel rate, and if hes anything like Pence, getting the barrel to the ball is all he needs to do, let the raw power take care of the rest.

Yes

Trading your best hitter lets a lot of air out of the win now balloon, just saying. Agreed that its not slammed shut. BUt I was on here on Fri declaring that its not time to look to the future and screaming that the time is now (John Cena), and now its looking like a half attempt to win now, but also we're trying to save money at the same time, so its one foot in and one foot out, while Breslow talks about how the team has to be all-in on winning when he's not himself.

I think the Red Sox are just scared money. When you can point to a group of raising prospects and saying the future is bright (but not here yet) theres no pressure to win this year. This year is gravy because our window hasnt opened yet. But that grand opening of your competitiveness window is scary. So when the time comes to transition from "look at our minor leaguers, never mind that our team has missed the playoffs 5 straight years in a league where every year a few mediocre teams make the playoffs and the format changes have made it much easier to make the playoffs" - and when it comes time to go from that to actual, its time to win (which comes with accountability) - we find a way to punt. Well, half-punt.

If I know the Red Sox, and I believe I do, the next move will be a fruitless buy. Whats going to happen is they are going to play .500 ball for the next month, and as soon as their percentage chance of making the playoffs fall below 20%, they will go out and overpay for struggling players, giving up prospects in our 5-10 range, For James Paxtons, or Eric Hosmers, or that middle infielder they got at the deadline 2 years ago that never did anything. And the prospects they gave up for these players (becasue every buy needs to be followed by a sell and vice-versa) will sting a bit, but what will sting more is watching Chapman hit FA and losing yet another chance to acquire moveable assets because this team is too afraid to commit to either the present or the future. They'd rather hover in a place of uncertainty (like that famous quantum physics cat or my gf when she cant make up her mind where she wants to go for dinner)

^respectfully

Yes, yes, yes. Your wisdom is shining through. In sports you build your roster top down. You focus on getting the studs/horses/stars, and you do your best to get solid complimentary contributions (whether that be future stars on the way up, former stars on the way down, or career role players - which have a value). The game is won by the players, and disproportionately by your stars. All too often, I encounter friends who are just fine with being solid at every position. But they do not realize that not having stars stacks the deck against you. Im sure a team can win being built "middle out" a focus on assembling a quantity of middle of the road players, but its way harder than having 2 studs hitting in your top 4-5 of your lineup, and 1-2 aces at the top. Giving away an unquestioned lineup anchor, a guy who can hit like Devers can (top 10 in the league) is a huge setback. And while I get the reasons why the trade was made, I do not think we are set up better. I do not think Devers was overpaid. I do not think theyll use the money better (and its not because of recent swinging and missing on free agents, its because I fully reject the premise that Devers was "only a DH and therefore a bad contract", if he was a below average defensive firstbaseman (Vlad) he would be 500M man. But hes a DH so instead, hes overpaid at 280M? The difference between being a subpar firstbaseman and a DH is worth that much? Im not buying it, either 1 of 3 things happen from here. EIther we go forward next core without an elite hitter, or we get an elite hitter who plays a position (and that dude is NOT coming at 28 yrs old for 280M, hes either going to be 4 years older or 200M more expensive - and hes prob not going to be a great defender either). Or 3, we acquire a stud hitter on the cheap (maybe its Anthony, maybe its via trade) - but 3 could have happened anyways and we'd have that 1-2 punch which worked so well in 2004,2007. You guys were so willing to pay 700m for Soto, but are celebrating getting out from under a bad contract (Raffy owed 280M). You realize that if Soto was on the team right now, he'd be a DH right? And honestly so little of his 700m came from being a lousy defensive outfielder. It wasnt even one of the 7 hundred millions. None of this is adding up. Sotos bat is worth 700m, Vlads bat is worth 500m, Raffys bat was NOT a bad contract at 280m. Maybe there will be someone who will hit 80% as good as Raffy that we can get at double the price tag of Raffy, but at least that dude will be a lousy defensive player and prob better suited at a DH, but we'll force him into the field, probably at our own detriment, and for that reason - that next player is worth 600m but Raffy was overpaid at 280M? No, no no This team is just averse to long-term contracts and players who deserve them. And again, who even wants a team of year-to-year mercenaries. I just read a great article by Maddie talking about that human feeling. Well part of that is connection that doesnt develop with year to year mercs. Doing everything you can to avoid big contracts (that yes, often fall underwater, is not winning baseball). If you never miss, you arent swinging enough.

Gio Gonzalez, maybe

Thats my concern

Right, pitching is about depth and injury luck in 2025. Dodgers were supposed to be 7 deep this year and last and have had patchwork rotations. Like the Yankees, like the Braves. Big investments in pitching results in big investments on the IL (unfortunately). But I will concede that I did go too far when I said Raffy completely carried our lineup. Good points there. But I just think that in 2025, every pitcher is likely to get hurt, so invest in hitting

Sure - but is it really better. Is that what you want? Every year 3 new 1 yr contracts for pitchers and if they do great they are gone, while we struggle to score runs. Our aversion to long term deals is part of the reason why we keep getting the Giolittos and Buehlers and paying them high AAVs. The James Paxtons and the Sandovals. When you offer 1 yr deals, you get players who are willing to accept them.

Trying to win via pitching as best foot forward is a suckers game in 2025. Every pitcher has a 60% chance of getting hurt (or stinking out of nowhere). Bats are more predictable and reliable. Not to say we dont need pitching, but trying to replace Raffy by focusing on pitching, I dont want to hear about the bad luck when they all wind up on the IL or just plain not being any better than in-house candidates. Also if we make the playoffs, we can lean on Crochet. We are so much further away now :/

So we had to trade him because by the time he told the sox he would play 1b , the need for a first baseman was no longer there? He never needed to play 1b. He should have, and hes not blameless. But thats in the past. To summarize, what I am gathering from your posts: This hurts us a lot going forward, but Im good with the move because there was a window (that has since been closed) where it would have helped the team to have him play 1b, and even though its old news now and no longer important he didnt step up then - so i am now fully convinced he needed to be moved because something in the past that no longer applies. Team was rounding a corner with him at DH. There was simply no need to move him.

2018 was a different team. More recently, I dont think that the fact that the TEAM success in recent years has been bad means we can just subtract our best hitter during that span and not miss a beat. And it is my opinion that you are taking our "pretty good hitting" (which we almost always have had, per you) for granted. Keep subtracting your best bats and see how long that keeps up. Also, I dont think "pretty good hitting" is good enough. Dodgers had a rash of pitching injuries and were carried by their offense. 6th isnt good enough, and if it werent for Devers I wonder what they would have been. Count on your pitchers to get hurt, build your team through the bats.

In a world where Walker Buehler costs 21m, freeing up 31m by removing the guy who carries your entire lineup - and spinning it as a good thing is a take that is way to pervasive

Then you are being misled. It would be one thing if we Devers had crapped the bed with his bat, or there were multiple comparable bats we could acquire, or if the team was losing But none of that is the case. Not only is the bat not replaceable for 2025, top 10 hitters in the mlb jsut arent available for anything close to 280M, and I doubt the Sox will suddenly become a team willing to pony up 500m for a vlad. And we were starting to win. The Red sox, in year 6 of a rebuild, just set the clock back 3 years. And Im not even certain that we'll be able to replace Devers within 3 years. You had a top 10 bat, which is one of the hardest things to find/acquire. This money will get spread among #4 pitchers who will get hurt or have ERAs in the 4s.