Lillian

Russo is hard to take, but in this case, it's also hard to argue with him. The Sox are indeed "second class in the city".

Wow!, I was 15 then, and had a similar experience, but I'll never forget game one. I remember staying home from school, to watch the first game, with Early Wynn pitching for the Sox. That first game was the highlight of the Series for me, with the Sox winning big, shutting out the Dodgers, 11 to nothing. The sobering fact was that my mother refused to write an "excuse" note for me. The next day, I presented my homeroom teacher with a note from my mother. In it, she explained that she couldn't make me come to school, because I simply wouldn't miss the opening game of the World Series. The teacher immediately sent me to the Principal's office. After contritely and sheepishly listening to him lecture me about how such behavior was not acceptable, and what a bad example it would be for other students, he pointed out that "it really wasn't a very good game, after all, because it was so one-sided," to which I immediately perked up and excitedly replied: "Oh no, it was great. Wynn pitched a shut out and Ted Kluszewski hit 2 homers. It was fantastic!!" He just sent me back to my homeroom, with a feigned stern look, but I could see that he really struggled to hold back a smile. Thanks for reminding me. You must be about one year younger than I am. These young Sox fans think that they've suffered for so long. In those early days, there was never any doubt about who would win the American League Pennant. It was always a race for second place. The Yankees could have had their World Series tickets printed, before opening day. I don't know, maybe they actually did. But the Go, Go Sox surprised everyone, in '59.

My understanding is that there are three significant factors , regarding playing in Coors Field. Number one, the breaking balls don't break as much, because of the thin air. Number two, the ball travels further in that low density air and finally, there is an adjustment required when going from sea level, to much higher elevation.

Those players don't have to deal with the altitude adjustment, when they go on the road. It might be more interesting to look at their stats, only when the go on the road to Coors Field.

Now there's an insightful suggestion. Let another team overpay for Harper and, or need to off load some talent and salary. We could step in and "help" them out, with pleasure. We have plenty of outfield prospects coming, so a shorter term commitment might suit the Sox, just fine.

I think that they would want the very best defensive centerfielder possible, with Eloy and Harper at the corners. There would be plenty of offense and the production from CF would be rendered unimportant.

If the Sox sign Manny and not Harper, the Alonso move helps in another way. It provides a legitimate middle of the order, left handed bat, in what would otherwise be a very right handed heavy lineup. You know me, that's a factor, to which I always attribute considerable weight. Here is what the 2019 lineup would look like, vs. RHP: Moncada 2B Machado 3B Abreu. DH Alonso. 1B Eloy. LF Palka. RF Castillo. C Anderson. SS Engel. CF Robert takes over CF in 2020. Alonso's option is picked up (partially as a favor to Manny). If one of the Left handed hitting outfield prospects, such as Rutherford, Gonzales, Walker, or the switch hitting Basabe, demonstrates that they are ready, they could take Palka's place in RF, and he could return to DH'ing, after 2020. Hell, they might even keep Alonso and find a role for him.

Why would anyone expect to get any meaningful news today,, when he is scheduled to meet with the Phillies and Yankees, later in the week?

Perhaps. As I said, some may have a different perspective. That's just mine.

For those who don't understand, or agree with the point I'm making about Machado's demands, let me express it this way: If he is more valuable to the team, at 3RD base, rather than SS, why would he insist that he play short, and demand more money, in order to make a concession by playing his best defensive position? If none of this registers with you, then I guess that we simply have different perspectives. When one adds this egocentric crap to his other dubious behavior, especially during the Post Season, you have to at least question his character. Imagine how he might behave, once he has signed his big 10 year contract. At least now, one would think that he would try to be on his best behavior. Once he has inked a deal, who knows what kind of person will emerge? Perhaps having his best friend and wife's brother around to mentor him, or maybe "keep him in line" is a better choice of words, could be the biggest intangible benefit of signing Alonso. Maybe, we should extend Yonder, in the event Manny comes to the Sox, just to baby sit this guy. LOL.

I want to recognize the exemplary behavior of Abreu. It would be very surprising and out of character, if we ever heard this kind of BS from him. It's just one of the things that I find so endearing about Jose.

It would appear that Machado and his agent are simply using this positional preference as a negotiating ploy: https://larrybrownsports.com/baseball/manny-machado-move-to-third-base-right-contract/476698 This is just more of the same. When he was insisting that he could play SS, it was likely intended to increase his value. Now, that interested teams are expressing the desire to have him play 3RD, he's suggesting that he would be willing to do that, for a few million dollars more. Geez, this stuff gets old. I wonder if using such a negotiating tactic is really wise. One might think that he would build more political capital and generate more interest if he simply said; "I'm confident that I can contribute anywhere my new team needs me," or: "I can play 3RD, SS or 2ND, whatever would help my new team, the most". A team, in need of a third baseman, might react to that posture, more favorably. He is clearly a better defensive third baseman, than he is a SS. So, what is he saying? Is his stance that he will only provide the most potential value to his new team, if they pay him extra? What's next, "Hey, and I might even consider hustling more, if you pay me extra". How about; "Hey punk, here's $350 million, now shut up and focus on trying to justify it". Does anyone else find any of this just a little "off putting"? I would guess that more than a few former players, from previous eras, especially pre the free agent era, are shaking their heads, in disbelief and disgust.

Of course, all of that was inferred. My point was that, providing Machado signs and plays third, the entire lineup looks fine, even with Alonso in it, about which many here seem to be very unhappy.

Providing this ploy works, Machado signs and agrees to play third, I assume this would be the lineup versus RHP: 2B Moncada 3B Machado DH Abreu 1B Alonso LF Eloy RF Palka C Castillo SS Anderson CF Engel It's not bad. It improves the defense at first, adds a left handed bat (He's pretty decent vs RHP) and would comprise a reasonably productive offense, while we wait for Robert to take over Engel's place in CF.

Or, unless the Sox sign Machado.

If that was the case, why wouldn't the Blue Jays have simply told him that he can't play SS, and let him retire? Wouldn't that have saved them the $38 Million?

I don't doubt that the Dodgers could acquire Harper. I just doubt that they would be foolish enough to spend that kind of money on one player. They simply don't need to do that. They already have the fan support and lots of good players. Why would they elect to commit that much money to one guy, especially a player who is not nearly the best player in baseball? As some of us have argued; the Sox may "need" to do it, but the Dodgers don't.

Well Jack Parkman, you obviously do not have an intellectual disability, considering your degree and the quality of your posts. I'm sorry that you have not been able to obtain satisfying and well paying work. I hope that improves.

Well, wasn't that fun? I hope none of that makes me a "troll". LOL. Now, sign Harper already and get on with the rest of business.

Yes, and I imagine that you can't think of many kinds of jobs, where you get a guaranteed contract, for 10 years, regardless of how well you perform. However, in the final analysis, no one is coercing anyone. The owners agreed to this kind of a Labor Agreement, and they have only themselves to blame, if they don't like it.

One more point; Although I also understand the the Players' Union does not allow such a thing, wouldn't it be refreshing to occasionally see a player make some kind of gesture, to demonstrate that he felt bad about taking a huge amount of money, for what turned out to be very disappointing performance? Who was that pitcher who left a bunch of money on his contract, for such a conscientious sentiment? In most lines of work, you don't get guaranteed money for 10 years, into the future, regardless of how you end up performing. Nevertheless, it is what it is. Perhaps if these guys at least made a pretense of being a little less about themselves and the money, it would be easier to swallow. But again, that's just me.

Oh, well if we are going to base this on "fair compensation", then perhaps we should bring the conversation back to WAR. Look gentlemen, I completely embrace liberty and the free market. More power to any professional athlete, who seeks to earn as much as he can. However, let's remember that there is no accountability in this process. If a team agrees to pay a player $350 million, over 10 years, and then he either gets injured, or performs miserably. That's just tough luck. I know, no one forces the owners to agree to these contracts. It's just that no player ever seems to have even the slightest feelings of regret, that he didn't live up to expectations.

Please don't take offense, but I'm not surprised. It is simply a different perspective. Don't mind me. I'm old and I'm afraid, a little "old school". I still appreciate things like humility, gratitude and loyalty. LOL Here we go, and I can imagine how this comes across, but I remember when Major League players had to have jobs, in the off season, just to get by, and even some pretty good players, at that. I guess that if I were in such a position, I would at least try to appear to be a little less self centered and egotistical. I would certainly not want the fans to get the impression that all I cared about was making a few extra million dollars, on top of hundreds of millions. The idea that a guy's goal is to become the "highest paid player in the history of the game" doesn't create a very endearing image, even if that might be what motivates him.

I never embraced the old "Feudalistic" structure of baseball, when teams "owned" players, but listening to these players and their demands about how many hundreds of millions of dollars they need to agree to play for a team, with whom they would "feel comfortable", in a city they like and exactly which position they are willing to play, makes me long, just a little bit, for the old days, before free agency. It's just harder to relate to these guys. You would think that they might almost be embarrassed by all of this. Well, I feel better, to have gotten that "off my chest". Thank you for letting me rant.

CF is our #3 prospect, Robert's in 2020, and if he doesn't develop, as anticipated, there is always Basabe, Gonzales or even Walker. All 3 of those guys are considered to be among our best prospects. I don't see the point of worrying about who is going to be in CF, in a noncompetitive 2019.