Texsox

If he just cared about winning where else would he go that doesn't spend big on free agents? It is kind of a circular argument, if a team prioritizes winning over profits they will spend more. But if the team spends more then players just come because of the money and not winning. So teams like the Sox don't spend big on free agents because they are looking for players who just care about winning and not the biggest paychecks. Brilliant strategy JR.

TA always says the right thing.

My point was really if players didn't care about the paycheck someone would have every great player and they would probably be in NY or LA to win championships. As @Tnetennbamentioned there are also ego and other human factors in play so some of the Midwestern guys may want to go to Chicago. But money spreads players out a bit. Players going for the money screws a couple of franchises (I'm looking at Pittsburgh), but most of the franchises can land an above average replacement in the free agent market by outbidding. Not always a marque name, but above average. Which is why I favor eliminating the draft and having everyone be a free agent from the start. Imagine if other industries worked like that. Accounting firms gathered together every spring to draft accountants for their company. "We needed to beef up our budget analyst department but fucking JR went cheap in the first round and picked up a payroll generalist. You can pick them up in a late round from a public school for cheap. No need to waste a high pick."

I'm certain his ego and other human factors played a role as well.

Close. His son was falling off a garage roof and he hurt himself trying to save his kid. Apparently that's more important than his team. (Wish we still used green for sarcasm)

So maybe more than just money factored in his decision?

In response to the comment that he wants to be here because the Sox were high bidder for his services. I meant imagine if money wasn't a factor to the players. They would play for minimum wage just to be on the best team possible.

And fans are better off. Imagine if money wasn't a factor and every player just wanted to be on the very best team and win championships.

Most people would have roasted Tony for not backing his player.

@T R Uthanks for making the thread interesting. Overall I think they did well. Maybe they could have some a little better, but trading the pick eventually made sense to me after I realized it was trade Fields or trade the pick. My hunch is the #9 gets packaged for a line guy (D or O) in a similar situation to Moore. Immediate impact, less risk, less upside than drafting.

It's crazy that for years I've sat around with buddies in the golf business my age and we talk about our latest trips to the dermatologist office but rarely change any behaviors.

I wonder if you keep putting a guy in bad positions if that doesn't cause his stats to plummet? He played six different positions last year. He did the s%*# work when the team needed it. I'd like to see him have a season where he plays a couple dozen games at second, a couple dozen games at short, pitch runs for guys late in games, maybe plays a few in center. But keep him out of the corners. Keep him out of the top six in the order. He has managed to have a MLB career by working his ass off and filling a lot of different spots for a franchise with an injury problem that needs someone like him. The worse thing Larussa did was defend him. If Tony said the guy was a piece of s%*# he wished wasn't on the team we'd be wearing LG jerseys.

Pedro is the anti-Ozzie quote machine.

I agree with you but we are underestimating the franchise's ability to f*** up. Here's a few ways it can get worse. Players were largely left alone for a couple seasons are suddenly being scrutinized and someone is demanding better production. That could piss off a few players who chaff under the new leadership. They liked having a manager asleep in the dugout. We think guys will play better while relearning to play their "natural" position. Maybe not. Another year older will be great for some, not so great for others. Pitching still matters. Once injured - twice shy or something like that. But more likely, they will find a new, even more spectacular way to be worse.

I like it. Now give me a thirty team playoff series with the AL and NL winning teams receiving first round byes.

Should we? What do you think?

f*** cancer. One of my coaching buddies was diagnosed with stage 2 skin cancer. He's got 14 stitches in his neck from where they cut it out. He's waiting on a biopsy of the surrounding tissue to be certain they got it all. I'm now a bucket hat guy. I'm already at a high risk from so many sun burns, working outside, sports, hiking, fishing, and leukemia. I'm not going to make it easier on cancer.

I picked them third last year and hated it. When I look at it with an unbiased eye, I'm thinking second. But I've convinced myself they will win the division this year. I'm going all in, I've even located my Sox hitch cover to proudly display before opening day. I'll wear a Sox jersey to work on opening day (cool tradition at school) and endure the taunts from Astro fans.

Exactly. What's really funny is how many people Hahn fooled last year into believing that team could win the central.

Exactly. Millennials can't get a job done without older folks around to lead them. A locker room full of twenty and thirty year old kids can't be expected to perform. They will fail. Except in every other business on the planet. Then suddenly folks in that same age range can innovate, build massive companies. But in baseball, no way. They need a manager to guide them.

I find it shocking that a bunch of twenty and thirty year old guys can't manage by themselves without some older dudes getting in their faces and leading them.

It's treading water.

We're going to make the playoffs and win the WS in three games when the NL team forfeits after realizing they have no chance. Or finish two games over .500 while getting eliminated in game 159.

He's a grinder working to do whatever the team asks if him, sacrificing himself and his reputation in the process and never complaining. He was here before Tony and after Tony. So far every manager has found a lot of at bats for him.

Couple final things. I take late work without penalty. Nowhere in the state standards am I required to teach "responsibility". I don't care if you learn something on February 8th or March 5th. I'll also accept corrections until the student is satisfied with their grade (lol happens about twice a year but helps out with parents). My grading style is what I call "zero up". When I look at a student's assignment it's a zero and I start looking for everything they did right until we top out the grade rather than starting at a 100 and deducting points. It's probably meaningless in the end but I'd rather look for things that a student does right than searching out mistakes. That creates an adversarial relationship and blocks effective partnerships in my mind. The first time I graded that way was after looking at a kid's math homework that was covered in red with -2 all over the place. I grabbed a green marker and started writing +5 and +10 all over the paper. Damn if I didn't feel better afterb working through that stack. Kids and administrators love my classes but teachers vote for teacher if the year. As a coach I'll never earn that award but I'll take the Student Council's Teacher of the Month Award (most recently January 2023) or our Counseling Departments "B" award any day. And thank y'all for asking. One of my friends keeps telling me I should write a book on my grading system. It's at the top of my list of things I'd change in education.