|
Post by orion09 on Dec 31, 2018 3:33:27 GMT -5
I remember really really really wanting to re-sign Beltre. There was a feeling among many, although not most, that he was over performing in a contract year. I never bought that argument, at least not for him. Assuming he plays with the same level of production in Boston (you could make the argument his numbers could be better)He would have provided both stability and production at the position all the way up to the Devers era. Keeping Beltre also leaves Youk at 1B, meaning no trade for Gonzalez...allowing Rizzo to take over and stabilize that position as well. How fortunate are we as fans that, in spite of two near-Bagwell-level misses (Beltre and Rizzo), we’ve won two championships in the last six years!
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 1, 2019 12:39:03 GMT -5
Kinda hard to argue you should have resigned a guy after you traded him and got a huge return. At that point you lose the team discount and he's just a free agent. You keep him and slap the QO on him and he's yours, yet you don't get ERod. A whole lot of hindsight is being used with Miller, he was worth -.4, .7, .4, and .9 plus 1.0(with Balt) 1.9 bwar in his four seasons before free agency. He then went on to post 2.4, 3.7, and 3.1 bwar in his next three years. Given how relievers are up and down I'm not sure how you can make a great argument that we should have went crazy getting into a bidding war with the Yankees without using hindsight. We made a really aggressive offer if I remember right. I'm with James on this one, I like the way it worked out. No one thought Miller would be the best reliever in the game for 3 straight years. If they did he would have got a lot more money. Rumor was at the time that 20+ million plus incentives was the Sox offer. Wasn't close to the Astros 40 million or Yankees 36 million. I recall them offering 4/32, but wouldn’t go past $8M AAV.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2019 20:17:50 GMT -5
Keeping Beltre also leaves Youk at 1B, meaning no trade for Gonzalez...allowing Rizzo to take over and stabilize that position as well. How fortunate are we as fans that, in spite of two near-Bagwell-level misses (Beltre and Rizzo), we’ve won two championships in the last six years! Trading Rizzo got them Gonzalez, which allowed them to trade him so that they could unload the Crawford and Beckett contracts and basically reset the roster, allowing them to build the team that won in 2013. So you can trace that championship to that trade. Now, not unlike the trade of Hanley, where you can trace a championship to one move, that's not to say they could not have otherwise built a champion, it's just at that point you're in the realm of complete conjecture arguing against a scenario where they did, in fact, win the World Series. That's a tough argument to make.
|
|