Lillian

Nice prospects, however I don't expect either of them to develop into middle of the order hitters, do you?

All of this talk about other future opportunities to acquire a free agent, not named Bryce Harper, continues to ignore the fact, which I constantly stress. What do Goldschmit, Martinez, Bogaerts and Rendon all have in common? I'll give you a big hint. It's the same thing that they all have in common with the one guy, whom we can pencil into our future middle of the order. Look, I understand that some of you think that I'm obsessed with "left handedness". I'm not. If I'm obsessed with anything, on that subject, it's the need for balance. I wouldn't want the lineup to be all left handed, any more than I want it to be all right handed. Ideally, there is a balance, especially in the middle of the order, from where the most run production is supposed to be generated. Moncada still seems to profile best as a lead off hitter. You know that I have hopes for him to become the second coming of Rickey Henderson. I love his speed and his eye, but I don't envision him as a slugger. Give me a switch hitting, high OBP, speedster at the top of the order, who can also hit the long ball and you have a championship caliber table setter. So, if Moncada stays at lead off, who are the best candidates, in the system, to fill the 3, 4 and 5 spots? Eloy and.......?.....? I would include Robert, Burger and Adolfo as guys who profile as middle of the order hitters, if they develop into better than average Major Leaguers. Guess what they all have in common. Surprise, surprise, they're all right handed. There are two possibilities, who bat from the left side. Sheets and Collins could fit there, but realistically the odds say we shouldn't count on both of them. We'll be lucky if one of the two pans out. Harper fills the void, and would be a fixture, in the middle of the order. The top 2/3 of the lineup, consisting of Moncada (SW), Madrigal (RH), Eloy (RH), Harper (LH), Robert (RH) and Collins (LH) could represent a nicely balanced and formidable offense. When you add the fact that Harper hits from the left side, to his critical age factor, he is the obvious best fit for this team. One has to believe that Hahn sees this. That's why I'm confident that they are still in this hunt. Forget about waiting until next year's free agent class. Just sign Bryce!!!

So would 4 years, @$45 million per, do it? If not, then he must really not want to play for the Sox. We know that it isn't the city. He likes Chicago.

How much would you guess the Dodgers would offer?

If he wants to take a short term deal, how about 4 years @ $40 Million per, no opt outs? After 4 years, he can go across town and play with his Buddy Bryant, if he's still a Cub. The Harpers wouldn't even need to sell their house.

This is precisely the point, and well stated. I'm all for players being paid fairly, but it's a two way street. Another way to illustrate the point is to remember that there is virtually no risk to a player that a team will not honor its contract and pay the money guaranteed. However, there is no assurance, what so ever, that the player will be able to deliver on his expected performance. Under those circumstances, players need to give a little on the nature of their opt outs.

I assume that most of you would agree that this is simply a matter of opinion. There is no absolute, correct answer to the question, regarding what kind of opt out would be acceptable. In any case, as hopeful and optimistic as I am that the Sox are covertly pursuing Harper, I seriously doubt that they would agree to an opt out, after just 2, or 3 years, on a 10 year, $330 + million contract. That is probably a deal breaker for ownership, given the fact that the team is not yet ready to contend, even with Harper.

If Harper is given a 3 year opt out, it ties the Sox hands, in the event that some other potential acquisition might surface. It's one thing to offer a short term, 3 year contract, but quite another to be on the hook for $330 million +, but not have any certainty as to when the player might leave. Such a deal does not make sense for the Sox. He would be a critical component of that window of contention and if he were to depart, they would then have to scramble to find his replacement, which would not be as easy as some have suggested. How many middle of the order, left handed bats, with a career OBP of .388 are there, in any off season? All of the amounts of money and conditions which go into making these contracts, are arbitrary, so there really aren't a lot of rules. However, it just seems a little unfair and not very equitable, for the player to demand that the team commit to 10 years, while he is only willing to commit to 2, or 3.

My question was directed at that very obstacle. If the increased amount, for the critical 3RD and 4TH years, were sufficient, that would mitigate the inherent risk of Harper opting out. It is the risk that he leave, just when the contention window is wide open, that makes the opt out so objectionable. If you can greatly reduce that risk, then the Sox may be willing to grant one. This probably wouldn't be allowed, but just to illustrate, what if the first 5 years of the deal looked something like this?: Years 1 & 2 @ $35 Million per Years 3 & 4 @ $45 Million per Year 5 @ $35 Million It wouldn't be very likely that he would walk in year 3, or 4. And if he left in year 5, that would be fine, as that is when the young core would be reaching that stage, where they would have to start being paid.

What is the greatest disparity, allowed by the CBA, in years 3 and 4, over the rest of the contract,? That might be the best way to help ensure that he doesn't opt out, after the 2ND, or 3RD year. Pay a little less in the first two years, so that the annual salary could balloon up to $40 million in years 3 and 4. Under those conditions, the opt out, being demanded by Harper, would not be a problematical.

If they have already begun to explore the possibilities of using synthetic materials, one might imagine that they may ultimately discover a material that works even better than what they now use. Perhaps one day they will create a "super tendon". What do you think? Maybe that will happen and as a consequence, pitchers will put too much stress on their shoulders. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature," as the old commercial said.

Do you think that it would be feasible to modify the procedure, in a way that would be less risky and simply insert something to strengthen the UCL, so that it would reduce the risk of a future tear? Perhaps some synthetic, or biomechanical part could be devised.

At what age does the elbow epiphyseal plate close? (Whatever that is) LOL

Maybe they will ultimately determine the optimum time to have the TJ, in a young pitcher's life and just make it routine. If they performed the procedure, before the injury occurred, would the results be the same, or even better? I understand that such a practice would be very radical, but if it made the elbow stronger and dramatically reduced the incidences of UCL tears, maybe it would make sense. Is there a better way to perform the operation, if there is not already a tear? I'm thinking something like a "bionic arm". Would the procedure be any less risky, than when performed on a torn UCL?

Years ago, before Tommy John Surgery was available, I don't remember anywhere near the number of pitchers having this injury. It seems to have become the rule, rather than the exception. Very odd, especially since today's hurlers don't throw nearly as many pitches. This paradox has puzzled me, for a long time. Just strange.

Since you're trying to compare Arenado to Harper, it might be useful to look at Bryce's career stats, at Coors' Field: In 75 plate appearances (admittedly too small of a sample size): AVG .387 OBP .489 SLG .627 Interesting, I just checked and Arenado has very similar numbers, hitting at Washington's Park.

OK. then that would validate my point. If they won't be ready to contend until 2021, and Harper could opt out in 2022, you have him for one year of contention. No thanks. Oh sure, if you were giving him to the Sox, I'd take him. However, in any case, it would cost a significant amount of money. Sorry, but 3 years is too soon for an opt out.

It seems a little unfair to ask a team to commit to 10 years, regardless of performance, while the player is only committed to three. At least, 4 to 5 years, on a 10 year deal, seems like a reasonable compromise.

If the window of contention doesn't start until 2020, yes I would prefer not to get involved, with that much uncertainty, for only 2 years of service time, during that window. Having him, but not being able to count on him, might complicate any longer term plan, that the front office could be trying to develop. For example, let's say that someone like Adolfo emerges as a real top prospect, but is blocked by Harper, so the team trades him for some other need. Then Harper leaves and creates a hole, which could have been filled.

If he won't commit to at least 4 years, I personally don't want him. Ideally, opt out after 5 years. I certainly wouldn't fault management, if they lose him to another team's bid, because we wouldn't offer that opt out, at 3 years.

The following are some of the differences in the Machado and Harper "sweepstakes"; 1) At the time the Sox were negotiating with Machado, there were two "whales" available. Now, there is one. 2) One plays third, the other is an outfielder. I understand that this actually favored the pursuit of Machado. 3) One bats right handed, the other left handed, How long has Hahn been trying to acquire a middle of the order LH bat? 4) One has questionable character and fan appeal, the other is a true "marquee" attraction, much better suited to become the face of the franchise 5) Machado's career on base % is .335. Harper's is .388 (more than .50 points higher) 6) The Machado negotiations took place with a considerable amount of transparency, which ultimately proved to have disastrous consequences. It there are currently negotiations with Harper, they are being conducted with secrecy, which would be the more prudent approach, given the circumstances. 7) We have no idea how Mr. Reinsdorf views the two players, or human beings. I suspect that he would be more comfortable with Harper, than baseball's "bad boy". I'm sure that there are many more, but that list should be sufficient to dispel any notion that the two situations are comparable, and that one can equate what happened in the case of Machado, with what should be expected, with Harper. And finally, to reiterate something that I suggested some time ago, Manny's friends may have been brought in, as much to help keep him on the right path, as they were to lure him to the organization.

This seems to have become a mantra, with you. The logic is faulty. I'm surprised that this not apparent. We are talking about two different players and two separate negotiations. We don't know what is transpiring, behind the scenes, however it is a little perplexing that anyone would think that what took place with Machado, precludes any serious pursuit, by the Sox, of Harper.

Vaughn is off to a torrid start. 14 walks, in his first 35 plate appearances, for a .714 OBP. He also has 11 hits, including 3 homers, for a .524 Average and a .1000 SLG. Yikes!!! It looks like the first opponents have decided not to pitch to him, so he is taking his walks. Rutschman isn't far behind. In his first 8 games and 25 AB's: .400 .595 .920 1.515 with 4 homers

Has anyone seen this and posted a link?: https://www.jotcast.com/chat/live-chat-with-tim-dierkes-4666.html

Happy Birthday Mr. Reinsdorf. We Sox fans wish you the best. Now, please tie a ribbon around a certain free agent, with the initials of Happy Birthday. in reverse and give yourself a big birthday present.