Look at Ray Ray Run

I mean, I think they should certainly have a ceiling and if someone greatly overspends what they valued the ceiling to be, they should move on. They shouldn't spend recklessly just to spend, but their valuations better not be significantly lower than everyone else also.... I wouldn't give Wheeler 6 years, 135 million for example - that would be reckless and you'd be better off playing in the big boy pool if you were going to invest that much. They certainly have to have ceilings, but they better be reasonable and built on the premise that FA = Overpay.

I agree with your take, but what is the Twins largest contract ever given to a pitcher? The Sox gave John Danks 63 million at least.

I get it, but Fred didn't really have a system. There was nothing unique about his offense. He ran a bunch of drags with limited shooters (terrible) and he cleared the paint for penetrating guards that didn't really exist. His sets had no fluidity to them - his offense involved perimeter rotations with false pass throughs in the paint constantly. With Rose, MAYBE you could run a spread offense fueled by drags because he could get out on the break so fast.... but the Bulls weren't even "great" in transition when their entire offense was predicated on transitions and drags. That's one broken system. His offense was reliant on constant switching - which does not happen nearly as frequently in the NBA as you'll see in college - to create mismatches off his high screens for Rose or whoever was running PG. Running a bunch of wing weaves with no great shooters just allows defenders to sag down low and double down on the penetrating guard. You didn't even need to shut off both corners because the Bulls didn't have the shooters there to keep the spacing as you'd like in that offensive set. Hoiberg was awful. I was critical of his offenses in college whenever he ran into a team that had two wings athletic enough to guard inside and out - every team in the NBA has that athleticism, and it made Hoibergs offense look like a kid drew it up.

Yes, they're "developing" players in a system that does not fit them. It's a great strategy. Boylen isn't going anywhere though. Amazing the coaches this team has thrown out there recently; Vinnie, Boylen and Hoiberg are just embarrassingly bad - to a level most don't understand. Hoiberg wasn't even a candidate for any other team - he wasn't one of the 10 best coaches in the college game, but he was friends with Gar so he got the job. Vinnie was about as ready as a 12 year old making his first move on a chick. Boylen... he's not even the best Jim Boylen coaching basketball for god sakes.

Based on what exactly? What have the Twins ever done to lead you to believe that they would be the organization to bid high enough to make the Sox uncomfortable?

Man, he must have had a hell of a second half because he wasn't very good in the first half. That's a nice season despite the k rate increase. If he duplicates that, you are correct - he doesn't need to get any better. Had no idea he had that big of a second half.

He made a swing change in the minor leagues right before the season started. There wasn't much that was flukey about his two months - his MiLB production had soared as well. His power may be very real. He hit 47 homers in 134 games. That's pretty good regardless of level and etc. I tend to side with you, but I do think he's an MLB regular with that power and I do think the power is real. The question is, can he find consistency.

Depends what you think of Senzel and Aquino. If you think their bonafide stars, that's not a bad lineup if they add another piece to it. Suraez and Votto could use a rejuvenated year though.

Yeah, but Grandal had a 3 year period with wRC+ of 121, 102, 125. A catcher ages even faster too. It's bizarre all around, but I understand the owners plan and goal.

Yeah, minimize salary growth over a few year period in the middle of the CBA, and then give them a slight escalation before negotiations to argue you haven't been doing that; hoping that recency bias overcomes the fact that they allowed salaries to stagnate for 3 years while revenues continued to grow. I don't see it working as a negotiating strategy, but I imagine the FA"s this year are happy. How can one argue that Mous and Grandal are worth MORE this off-season than last? You can't, so the only explanation is the above imo.

Wow, this is a lot more than I figured. This is a bad contract by the Reds, but good on Mous. MLB teams seem to be handling this off-season a little differently... with the CBA coming to a close. Seems like ownership may be looking to reverse the salary suppression belief.

Good for Mous.

I don't want to take this too far off topic, but the difference between 8 WAR from one player and 2-3 WAR is incredible. Trout is likely worth about 60-70 million a year, because replacing him is impossible.

Agree to disagree. Trout could be worth 50% of what he was worth in his first 9 years and he'd be worth his contract. I don't think people realize how historically good Trout is and people like him have aged really gracefully. Trout isn't going to fall off the face of the earth, for example.

If Robert ends up being worth 1/5th of what Trout was worth through his age 28 season, I think Sox fans would be happy. 1/5th! I love Robert; I am super excited for his arrival. Saying you wouldn't trade Luis Robert for Mike Trout is just crazy talk though. 400 million for Trout is a bargain.

You wouldn't trade Luis Robert for Mike Trout straight up? Say what? "Just spend it on Betts?" Betts is very good; he's still significantly worse than Mike Trout. If the Angels called and offered the Sox Trout for Robert today, and the Sox rejected, it that would be worthy of changing fanhoods. Trout might end up as the greatest of all-time - if not that, then in the top 5. I'd trade Madrigal and Robert for Trout.

I'd trade him for this guy:

Preller would still be trading for OF'er. You can never have too many!

I don't know how Tim is going to bounce back, but it's going to be hard to consider them a "terrible defensive team" next year. They'll have a very good defensive 3rd baseman (top 5 last year), an elite defensive 2nd baseman (Madrigal), a very good defensive catcher, a very good defensive CF'er, and the talent at SS to be above average to good at the position. If Tim shows some consistency next year, you're talking about having ++ defenders at every important defensive positions (SS, CF, Catcher, 2nd and 3rd). LF and RF could be really bad, and 1st base won't be good until Abreu is DH'ing full time but with McCann and Grandal playing some over there it should be better.

They're actually a good example of how you can fuck up a lot of good, young assets, by supplementing them with albatross contracts that don't work out. Conforto, Noah, Wheeler, Nimmo, Alonso, JD Davis, McNeil, Degrom, Maatz and Rosario is a heck of a young core. The problem is they've supplemented them with Cespedes, Cano, Diaz and other bad signings/contracts. Maatz obviously didn't pan out and Rosario hasn't been as good as advertised or believed, but that'll happen with young prospects. They are both still nice MLB pieces.

It feels like the Mets have alternated off-seasons between "competing" and "blowing it up" about 6 years in a row. It's a weird way to operate, and doesn't really make a lot of sense from a messaging standpoint. As an organization, it seems there are far too many messages and directions coming out.

Profar over Urias; interesting swap for the Padres. Can't say I like it, but Preller certainly has his own way of executing.

Negative. The Wilpons scammed a shit ton of people with Bernie. Bernie tried to cover for Fred when he was busted and claims "he knew nothing about the Ponzi Scheme" but Fred isn't a dumb guy; there were tons of huge red flags regarding their absurd return rates from Bernie's "investments." It was rather obvious what was going on, but people like Fred figured they'd ride the wave out because it was incredibly lucrative to them. People at the bottom bought into the absurd return guarantees and etc because they were naive - someone like Fred Wilpon cannot claim that same naivety. Bottom line, Fred benefited greatly from the scam - he benefited more than almost anyone else in involved. He is scum, and shouldn't be allowed to own a MLB team.

This is not true. Wilpon lost nothing in the Madoff scandal - regardless of how much he and his family played themselves off as just another victim. Wilpon made a ton of money working WITH Madoff. Anything they "lost" at the end was, at worse, a wash for the Wilpons. Knowing how these people handle and move money though, there's no chance they lost money with the Madoff scandal. They came out well ahead; as has been reported by others that aren't me. There's a reason they were sued along with Bernie and it's because that POS was complicit but escaped criminal prosecution. Fuck the Wilpons. edit; just to clarify, the only reason the Wilpons had the money to buy the Mets in the first place was because of their dealings with scum like Madoff. They're not suffering because of Madoff, they're just closer to their reality of net-worth.

Yeah, and Hahn has been absolutely awful in FA and has been ripped and ridiculed endlessly for his participation and lack of success in that market... You've certainly been HIGHLY critical of him, and rightfully so, yet here you are defending the Cano deal which falls in line with the value the Sox have been getting out of FA. You can't have it both ways.