southsider2k5

They aren't attractive to me either, but that is how the author described them, hence the quote.

I would bet a fair amount that this deal is already done and just waiting for Jerry's... um... exit.

Some rule changes make sense. I get trying to speed games up, and I get player safety. But forcing more pitchers to go longer into game in an era where we already have too many pitching injuries seemns pretty foolish to me.

This rebuild is off to a great start. -The draft route to talent is muted by the back to back top 10 rule -teams aren't willing to trade top hitter prospect talent -we won't spend in Latin America -The Cuban market has dried up -we won't spend in FA -Benny is handicapping the franchise from spending anyway, even with almost no future salary committments, other than him -we are going to take reduced returns to move Benny Ah, what a time to be a Sox fan.

Seems like just yesterday we had to DFA Duke Ellis because we HAD to protect Chuckie.

Jazz isn't having surgery. https://twitter.com/mlbtraderumors/status/1824495222375534639

It does probably mean a lot more roster churning for scratched starts and such. Say a guy pulls something during warm ups and a bullpen guy is forced to start. Does that guy have to go six, even if he isn't conditioned for it?

But think of all of the washed up utility players Getz could roster instead of another AA reliever!

The phrase was actually "attractive".

The NFL just expanded their regular season and are looking at doing it again.

Yeah, it's a shame no one has really probed this line of questioning yet. Why do the Sox refuse to do deals with younger Latin kids? Why do the Sox have remaining cap space left over annually in Latin America? Is this because of the refusal to make offers to younger kids, or are they intentionally trying to save space for the older Cuban kids? These two questions would tell us everything we know about how much of the problem Marco Paddy actually is. If it is an upper management policy to not talk to the 13-14 year olds, the Sox are already starting out behind, and it doesn't matter who takes this job over, it won't change the results. If there aren't any actual restrictions on who the Sox negotiate with an offer, the problem is obvious Paddy. So which one is it?

Yeah, if wasn't obvious then, it should be now. Holding on to Crochet was 100% the right move.

Yeah, this isn't the flex that some people believe it is, it's just a route to lengthening the rebuild.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5704568/2024/08/16/garrett-crochet-trade-offers-dodgers-phillies?source=user-shared-article

Yes when you graduate your top prospects the rankings take a hit, especially when they are the #1 prospect in baseball. But then those guys are contributing major leaguers in Baltimore. Dutch is years away and Montgomery can't hit a fastball. There is a chasm of difference between the two. Also there is a huge difference between 1 and 11. Like multiple spuerstar ceilings worth of differences.

Throwing darts at Getz’s player acquisitions probably wouldn't hurt either.

But this would be closest to saying you can't change hockey lines for 90 seconds than anything else. It really isn't technology, it's just not liking how they play the game

He flat out said that Boyer "retired" him.

Well, at least that's one record the Sox won't challenge for a while...