ptatc

I know but it's still depressing,

Agreed. It does limit it but so what. The rules that dictate how many players can be on the field at one dictate what the manager can do. That's the purpose of rules. If it is beneficial for the game, it's a good rule. Institute the rule and see how it goes. They can always modify it later.

Dang, that's depressing. I'm lucky to have had jobs that have been really interesting if not downright entertaining.

Good plan for one year. A veteran to play in a competitive year while they groom the rookie they take in the draft. Much less likely to have big mistakes in the secomdary.

The designated player or pitcher is interesting. I like the 3 batter minimum. This will phase out the LOOGY but the extra roster spot will add money for the union so it works for both sides. Hopefully the CBA discussion will help avoid a work stoppage.

Pagano played strong safety came up as a DB coach and is known for helping DBs excel.

Why give the at bats to them? They aren't going anywhere. As I said Jay and Alonzo were there to try to get Machado. It didn't work but it the grand plan of the rebuild it doesnt matter.

I have no idea how you can possibly get that point of view from that post. This year doesn't matter except to help the prospects progress. The moves they made with the pitching will help the young staff by eating innings and having a better pen so the starters can exit earlier. Jay and Alonzo aren't going to do much, but they aren't blocking any prospects so who cares. The Sox aren't trying to win so it doesn't matter, somebody has to play there so it doesn't save that much.

Its nonsensical because they aren't trying to compete this year so the money doesn't matter. In a year they might be trying to add a piece to go to the playoffs or win the world series it would matter. This year doesn't matter for competition so the money doesn't matter. They dont need to first anything else

I know, it a tough concept to grasp.

For the long term not 1-2 years. 45 million for a single year when they have an extremely low payroll is not an issue. 30 million for a single player years down the road could be a liability.

Good point. If the Sox think the years of control will drop from essentially 7 in this case to 4 or 5, it could be a big benefit to sign him now.

He is proven now but what will it be like in 10 years when there still 3 years in the deal? I would take that chance and I think they are wrong for not doing it. But from their perspective, how many 10+ year deals have really worked out in the team's benefit? It is a risk.

They could have. But every moves needs to be judged and weighed . How much will the contract drag the team down when Harper is 37 and can't play? If the young players from the rebuild do well, the team may not have the resources to get additions because of that contract . I'm not saying they shouldn't have signed one of them, they should have. However, there are some valid reasons why they may not be a wise use of resources for a team that historically doesn't have a high payroll from a FO perspective.

I'm not defending them for not signing those players. But I'm not taking everything else and saying its horrible move just because I didn't like them not signing Machado or Harper. Just because they screwed up one thing doesn't mean everything they do is bad. They are separate moves and can be judged individually.

Payroll flexibility is a valid concern. The FO has no idea what the payroll will be in 5 years. If JR restricts the payroll to 120 can they field a competitive team with 25% going to a single 0layer? What isn't a valid comment is saying that they couldn't go to 300 million. Go to more years and it drops the AAV like Harper got.

When people have an agenda they will twist anything to further it.

If they count the penalties and such wouldn't Robert's contract already fall into this category?

Boy the training staff really is having a tough year. I can't believe the injuries.

Something tells me the rest was ordered by the physician not the player.

I think he will probably pitch in 2020 if he has surgery soon. Probably July.

Yeah, the fact that he had issues before really starting ramping up his program wasnt a good sign.

I think they did it because they just have holes to fill. They need to sign a kicker and a punter and at least one safety, they only have 2 on the roster, for just players that need to start. They will also need to sign their draft picks. They had no real depth on the O line. I haven't seen the numbers on larson but that eats into it as well.

Shabbona isn't bad as someone said. For SW of Chicago Heidecke is good for musky and bass.

Right now Davis is the starter, I would wager. He's their best combination of runner/receiver.