drewski6

Fair, my point was about not letting these depth options prevent us from going after talent whether that be trade or free agency. I like having talent in the minors whom we can call up when we need. So I would see no reason to rush Casas out, even though we all want to see a FA signed. Guys get hurt and I agree, he could enter the fold at DH if its unsettled when Casas returns.

You can use Yoshida, Campbell, Romy, and Mayer and Casas to talk yourself out of signing anyone. But Id rather have depth and allow for some wiggle room in case one of the aforementioned doesnt seize a spot or if they have injuries. Last year, we had like 3-4 dudes off waivers starting every day. And we were never really a world series threat. So we need to improve. And guys get replaced on improving teams.

🥾👅

I think one of Bichette/Bregman/Marte and one of Alonso/Schwarber and then you add a very solid or better pitcher, and most of us will be high fiving.

Santander played 30 games at DH for them and had a .565 OPS Springer played 82 games for them at DH (highest on team) and had a .959 OPS (highest on team), post-season moments as well, The Blue Jays had a lot of contributions to their pennant from the DH spot, both in the regular season and postseason. They also had Vlad, Bichette, Varsho, and Kirk We need firepower and a lot of it, at the very least, we need to replace the production lost by Bregman and Devers. One of Bregman/Bichette/Marte (trade) AND Schwarber will do that. Of course, there are other players in the league who can hit as well. But if we go forward with Yoshida/Romy platoon, 1) Romy is probably our best hitter, so I hope hes playing a position when hes not DH'ing against lefties and 2) We'll need to add at least a few blue chip mashers elsewhere or we will be noodlebat city and sellers at the deadline.

If Marte is available , we simply HAVE to be aggressive there. Hes better than Bichette, probs. I can see two trades, one would center around an MLB outfielder, and one being a pure prospect package.

I think/hope if we get outbid for Schwarber/Alonso/Bregman/Bichette , theyll trade before settling on Suarez and Polanco. Maybe more hope than think.

I always liked Tim Raines

Raines over Baines. But this isnt really a case for keeping Baines outta the hall because Raines is in as well (I think). But still, Raines over Baines!

Bravo, Hugh! I especially like the bold. Not saying be LA or be NY, just saying eat into the payroll gap!

Wait now Im all crossed up. Which one is Blaze Jordan and which one is Blaze Alexander. Also, Blaze would make a great name for a bassett hound.

Prob depends a lot on if we get 1st half suarez or second half suarez. Similarly, it depends (not as much) on if we get 2025 Polanco (135 OPS+) or career average Polanco (110 OPS+)

Yes, 165m for breg, prob about 210m for bichette (because hes younger), so thats 375 and not sure on king but I doubt hes 125. So if you are willing to spend a half bil prob have room for other moves too like Matz, refsnyder, cheap first baseman like Hoskins or Bell

Good post. I agree that Durans arm is a knock / demerits/ negative points, but not a deal breaker regarding him in CF. But when you also factor in the lapses in focus, Im getting less comfortable. I really thought he was an energy guy / leader and I was on here saying you all will appreciate Duran when we get to the postseason because you want a guy like that. An alpha mentality. I wanted to see him talking sh*t through the media (whatever happened to that?) Instead I saw a guy who was NOT locked in neither at the plate nor in the field. Small sample size, sure, but I didnt think he would have one of his "duran" moments in the playoffs, and that was a bad drop.

Nice, Fred!

Youre actually making good points for both sides of the debate. Yes the Rangers won without contributions from their big contract pitcher (DeGrom), but this also shows that they were able to overcome all that dead money. Partly becaues these didnt let it stop them from pursuing Eovaldi or other pitchers. Understood it prob made them pause on "large and long" contracts for at least awhile and thats understandable. But the point here is that even in your examples of a team winning without a large and long contract for a contributing pitcher, they were still able to overcome the bad contract in DeGrom. Im also thinking back to the 90s/2000s Yankees teams where they would seem to always have a bad contract like Kevin Brown or Ellsbury and we would always think woohoo, this is gonna slow them. And they just went right over it with a speed bump. Im not necessarily saying you cant win without a large and long contract for a pitcher or anyone, Im really just saying that when we start talking about how we dont want them, or how they dont help, or how thats the yankees/dodgers way...Well those of us who say that, it feels a lot like towing the company line and I dont lick boots. Not to imply that you or anyone else is actually doing that. But I like the comment about gotta pay to play. There are exceptions to that rule, for sure. So maybe you dont HAVE to pay to play, but you are disadvanting yourself considerably by not paying to play. And I wonder how much Seager was making when the Rangers won. Im a dont avoid a bad contract at all costs guy, Im not a you need to have one high paid FA pitcher, that might be a distinction between me and Hughs views, even though I mostly agree and like what Hugh2 is saying.

The reason why you cant approach your roster strategy from a standpoint of trying to minimize mistakes and bad contracts and be super shy to take a risk and go long....The reason why you cant go about it this way is simple: Scared money dont make money You reallllllly dont wanna be scared money at the poker table with sharks like me in the water

Meant to respond off this but Im jumping tabs too much. But my point is - with this in mind, arent you GLAD that crochets contract isnt for 3 years? Because Skubal is gonna change the game, set a new precedent all that stuff and we got our boy locked in first. Theres a positive side to going long. It protects against inflation risk Obvs i understand far more dont work out than do but im a cost of doing business kinda guy

I just miss Canseco and Clemens and rising from my chair and screaming at my TV. But Im fine cuz I also watch hockey (and wrestling). I do think baseball needs a good fight tho.

cmon take the bait, take the bait

2 things 1. In that light arent we GLAD that Crochets contract isnt for 2 more years , its for more? Doesnt this illustrate that shorter isnt always better? The best contracts are the ones you lock in right before they scale up. Thats something I try to identify. 2. When are you going to give your fans what they want. (I dont know how, I responded to the wrong comment, meant to reply to your comment about how because we are a fw years into coles contract, skubal gonna be scary)

If I can get an elite pitcher right now for 30m/yr, I do it and its an easy decision. Because 30m / yr was top of the market 10 yrs ago, and if its still top of the market still 10 yrs later, the top of the market AAV for an elite pitcher is due to adjust north. So I wanna lock my guy in before that adjustmetn. Shorter isnt always better.

Theres no upside in teh 1 yr prove it contracts (agreeing with you). Worst case you wasted your money like Kluber or Buehler, best case they bounce back/opt out and you had 1 yr with them. With term, if they bust out, you have a very nice asset for a while (a player playing above their pay grade) ANother thing that gets overlooked by those who hate going long is inflation. I remember when Beltre signed like a 5 yr deal at 18m, and everyone was like "great player, but thats too much!" And then 2-3 years later, everyone was trying to trade for that contract because contracts caught up Like when Jaylen Brown signed the first contract after the CBA and was for like 1-2 months the highest paid player in NBA. And some of my friends were complaining about that, and im like, just give it a year. Same thing with Elias Lindholm on teh bruins. Contract inflation is real My thing is this: the contract you are signing or considering, how long ago were those threshholds broken (total dollars and aav). So for example, its been 10 years since David Price signed a 7 yr / 217 contract. And weve had a LOT of inflation in those last 10 years. So a 7 yr / 217 contrract today for a pitcher SHOULDNT be top of the market because it was top of the market 10 years ago. So if 30m AAV/215M total was top of the market 10 yrs ago and I can sign an elite pitcher for that (maybe its Skubal on an extension after we trade for him) you bet your butt im going to because if 30m/215m total was top of the market 10 yrs ago, the nthe top of the market contracts are due for an adjustment and i wanna lock my boy in before that adjustment happens. Once the threshhold is broken , its broken. Theres a lot to be said for setting a precedence for ffuture guys and setting the market. I consider this kind of stuff. And similarly, if you didnt get a raise this year, you got a pay cut because your cost of living went up. It applies in baseball. If your payroll in 2026 is equal to your payroll in 2025 , you decreased your payroll.

The Red sox were passed last year by the cubs and now are 4th in revenue. But theyll prob climb back to third next year if they are good. They own their TV broadcaster (remember the year everyone was cutting back because their TV broadcast partner folded and like 20 teams lost big dollars from TV contracts) - it didnt effect the Red sox , but they saw opportunity and pulled back because so many otehr teams were. And thats when like the yanks/mets/dodgers really put themselves ahead. But like the Rangers. Coming off the WS started trying to be super careful w payroll. But they had an excuse, their TV revenue went into jeopardy. That year was the worst becuase the other teams had a reason to dial back and we just did because ..... I dont know There is simply no excuse to be okay with being outside of the top 6

Im 41, which may come as a surprise because I was on BDC over 15 years ago