SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
|
Post by bucksmatthew on Jan 9, 2023 11:34:56 GMT -5
The troll and sarcastic comments stop now. If you want to have any actual discussion of the front office/ownership, then please do. But this is a FINAL warning that trolling will not be tolerated and you will be banned. Thanks. Thank you - I've been reading this board (and about all I do here is read) for 10+ years, and the past six months have been just painful - every thread seeming to devolve to a revisiting of grievances of who was responsible for what in the past - there is a reason many of us seldom post.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 9, 2023 12:06:22 GMT -5
Over the weekend MLB reinstated former Braves GM John Coppolella. Obviously what he did was wrong, thus the lifetime ban which lasted 5 years. He was the GM that drafted, traded for or signed Albies, Acuna, Fried, Riley and Swanson. Would any team bring him in? Should the Bloom consider this in an advisory role? My answer is yes the Red Sox should. Not justifying it but the "rules" in the International market had always been flimsy, and I think he deserves a 2nd chance, plus he is pretty good at evaluating talent. Aside from cheating in BOTH the international and domestic markets, MLB also investigated his treatment of Braves employees and even his defenders describe him as unhealthily obsessive. Say what you want about the current FO and the ownership group, but I don't think they have any interest in creating a toxic, win-at-all-costs, let-God-sort-them-out culture. Maybe his time away from MLB has mellowed him, but I don't think I'd be interested in being the one to take that chance. The game has also evolved a lot over the last few years, so a genius in 2016 might not be worth upsetting the apple cart in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 9, 2023 12:09:47 GMT -5
There have been so many comments over the last three years about how Bloom wasn't willing to spend and would run the Red Sox like Tampa Bay North, which was always inexplicable given that the team in fact spent up to or over the CBT every season. And as a lot of us pointed out, this offseason would be the one where Bloom would have enough money available to shape the team as he saw fit.
And it turns out... he is very willing to overspend to get the guys he targets. 16 million AAV for Jansen. 19 million AAV for Yoshida. 331 million for Devers. Kind of Dombrowskian, actually.
I don't suppose any of the "Tampa Bay North" folks are interested in revisiting their evaluation of his spending patterns, are they? Maybe say something about how your expectations for the sort of moves he might make have changed based on this offseason? If his major flaw, in your eyes, was an unwillingness to spend big, are you now mollified?
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Jan 9, 2023 12:34:46 GMT -5
I do think it's okay to say, "Tampa Bay North" in the sense that I don't think Bloom prioritized sentimentality or is likely to going forward. He wasn't willing to go crazy for Bogaerts because the chances of front-end value sufficiently outweighing back-end dead weight weren't good enough in his eyes. Signing Raffy may have been a necessity from a PR standpoint, but the actual deal signed still perfectly fits the idea of paying for peak performance projections rather than past production.
I don't think there's any indication that Bloom is willing to overspend on his targets - rather, I think it's clear that he trusts in the Red Sox's internal assessments and is willing to, say, pay Yoshida $19m AAV if he thinks that's a good deal and just not care if the rest of the industry thinks it's an overpay. (I don't actually think all other front offices think it was a bad deal, but there's no point in leaking, "Yeah, the Red Sox beat us and we're bummed.") That's the magic of being the Red Sox rather than the Rays - he doesn't always have to figure out the absolutely lowest cost way to do everything.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jan 9, 2023 12:52:56 GMT -5
I do think it's okay to say, "Tampa Bay North" in the sense that I don't think Bloom prioritized sentimentality or is likely to going forward. He wasn't willing to go crazy for Bogaerts because the chances of front-end value sufficiently outweighing back-end dead weight weren't good enough in his eyes. Signing Raffy may have been a necessity from a PR standpoint, but the actual deal signed still perfectly fits the idea of paying for peak performance projections rather than past production. I don't think there's any indication that Bloom is willing to overspend on his targets - rather, I think it's clear that he trusts in the Red Sox's internal assessments and is willing to, say, pay Yoshida $19m AAV if he thinks that's a good deal and just not care if the rest of the industry thinks it's an overpay. (I don't actually think all other front offices think it was a bad deal, but there's no point in leaking, "Yeah, the Red Sox beat us and we're bummed.") That's the magic of being the Red Sox rather than the Rays - he doesn't always have to figure out the absolutely lowest cost way to do everything. See and I came away with different opinion on it. To me it seems like Bloom is willing to overpay. I don't think he ever had the intention of going 300 million on Raffy. But he finally did, if that was because he was pushed towards it by management or a reevaluation on what the price of business costs I have no idea. Also I think it was an overpay for Yoshida. I base that on what I read about other teams evaluations of Yoshida and also on the fact that as a Boros client he signed on the same day he was posted. That being said I really don't care if he overpays for the players he gets as long as he is right about them and they produce in the end.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 9, 2023 12:54:10 GMT -5
I do think it's okay to say, "Tampa Bay North" in the sense that I don't think Bloom prioritized sentimentality or is likely to going forward. He wasn't willing to go crazy for Bogaerts because the chances of front-end value sufficiently outweighing back-end dead weight weren't good enough in his eyes. Signing Raffy may have been a necessity from a PR standpoint, but the actual deal signed still perfectly fits the idea of paying for peak performance projections rather than past production. I don't think there's any indication that Bloom is willing to overspend on his targets - rather, I think it's clear that he trusts in the Red Sox's internal assessments and is willing to, say, pay Yoshida $19m AAV if he thinks that's a good deal and just not care if the rest of the industry thinks it's an overpay. (I don't actually think all other front offices think it was a bad deal, but there's no point in leaking, "Yeah, the Red Sox beat us and we're bummed.") That's the magic of being the Red Sox rather than the Rays - he doesn't always have to figure out the absolutely lowest cost way to do everything. On the first bolded comment: I think that's fair, but I don't think it's what most people meant by saying he'd run the organization like Tampa Bay. In any case, a lot of people definitely seemed to think he'd be unwilling to spend big and their reasoning seemed to be that it's because he was once a member of an organization that had a small budget. That never made any sense and it's now been definitively disproven.
On the second: yes, I think this is a good point. I can buy that, say, Dombrowski's signing of David Price (or Trea Turner) was based on a logic of "I want this guy and will pay whatever it takes to get him," whereas Bloom's logic in signing Yoshida was "I want this guy because he is worth X and I will pay X to get him regardless of what other teams think he is worth." Though he did also say he'd be willing to go "a little beyond reason" to extend Devers and then... might have gone a little beyond reason to extend Devers. Which seems pretty similar to the Dombrowskian logic.
|
|
|
Post by runner on Jan 9, 2023 14:51:41 GMT -5
I'd give Bloom the credit for Yoshida and Jansen signings. Devers was more of a ownership call imo. I'd give Bloom the credit for the terms of the deal (no opt outs, only a 10 year deal, no "no trade clause"). Ownership had more of a say in the dollar figure I'm thinking.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 10, 2023 15:25:03 GMT -5
I don’t want to hear excuses about injuries this year. You sign a guy with an elbow injury, when his elbow blows, that is not bad luck. Maybe instead of signing Story they should have offered his deal to X. Rhen at least we’d have a SS.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 10, 2023 15:35:20 GMT -5
I don’t want to hear excuses about injuries this year. You sign a guy with an elbow injury, when his elbow blows, that is not bad luck. Maybe instead of signing Story they should have offered his deal to X. Rhen at least we’d have a SS. I was just thinking about this, and getting annoyed once again at their not offer Bogaerts a 6/150ish deal last offseason.
But now that they've extended Devers I'm feeling at least a little bit mollified about that. No one thinks Bogaerts can stay at SS for too many more years, and if they have Devers at 3B and Casas at 1B where does he play? LF? Well a) I'm old enough to remember the last time the team said "ehh, how hard could it be for a former SS to play LF?" with Hanley. (Answer: it's incredibly hard.) And b) how much value does Xander really have as a LFer? Especially if his batted ball profile is the harbinger of decline that it looks like it might be, he's like a 2 WAR players and sinking out there by like 2025.
It seems likely to me that they decided at some point that they could only keep one of Devers and Bogaerts for this reason. And their preference all along was to keep Devers. But when they couldn't agree on an extension with Devers last offseason they went to their plan B of trying to keep Bogaerts at a reasonable price. And when that didn't work they went to their plan C of basically paying whatever it took to keep Devers.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 10, 2023 15:36:57 GMT -5
I don’t want to hear excuses about injuries this year. You sign a guy with an elbow injury, when his elbow blows, that is not bad luck. Maybe instead of signing Story they should have offered his deal to X. Rhen at least we’d have a SS. I was just thinking about this, and getting annoyed once again at their not offer Bogaerts a 6/150ish deal last offseason. But now that they've extended Devers I'm feeling at least a little bit mollified about that. No one thinks Bogaerts can stay at SS for too many more years, and if they have Devers at 3B and Casas at 1B where does he play? LF? Well a) I'm old enough to remember the last time the team said "ehh, how hard could it be for a former SS to play LF?" with Hanley. (Answer: it's incredibly hard.) And b) how much value does Xander really have as a LFer? Especially if his batted ball profile is the harbinger of decline that it looks like it might be, he's like a 2 WAR players and sinking out there by like 2025. It seems likely to me that they decided at some point that they could only keep one of Devers and Bogaerts for this reason. And their preference all along was to keep Devers. But when they couldn't agree on an extension with Devers last offseason they went to their plan B of trying to keep Bogaerts at a reasonable price. And when that didn't work they went to their plan C of basically paying whatever it took to keep Devers.
and Blake Swihart
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 10, 2023 15:37:15 GMT -5
I don’t want to hear excuses about injuries this year. You sign a guy with an elbow injury, when his elbow blows, that is not bad luck. Maybe instead of signing Story they should have offered his deal to X. Rhen at least we’d have a SS. I know this isn't your point and I agree I'd love to have Xander at that price right now, but that being said I'd still take Story on his deal at Xander on his new one, even with this news.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 10, 2023 15:43:31 GMT -5
I don’t want to hear excuses about injuries this year. You sign a guy with an elbow injury, when his elbow blows, that is not bad luck. Maybe instead of signing Story they should have offered his deal to X. Rhen at least we’d have a SS. I was just thinking about this, and getting annoyed once again at their not offer Bogaerts a 6/150ish deal last offseason.
But now that they've extended Devers I'm feeling at least a little bit mollified about that. No one thinks Bogaerts can stay at SS for too many more years, and if they have Devers at 3B and Casas at 1B where does he play? LF? Well a) I'm old enough to remember the last time the team said "ehh, how hard could it be for a former SS to play LF?" with Hanley. (Answer: it's incredibly hard.) And b) how much value does Xander really have as a LFer? Especially if his batted ball profile is the harbinger of decline that it looks like it might be, he's like a 2 WAR players and sinking out there by like 2025.
It seems likely to me that they decided at some point that they could only keep one of Devers and Bogaerts for this reason. And their preference all along was to keep Devers. But when they couldn't agree on an extension with Devers last offseason they went to their plan B of trying to keep Bogaerts at a reasonable price. And when that didn't work they went to their plan C of basically paying whatever it took to keep Devers.
I think Xander can play SS as long as Story can. I will never believe that they signed Story to play next to X. They replaced X last year, low-balled him figuring sure if he’ll come at a bargain we’ll take it… but that was it. When they signed noodle arm, X was toast.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 10, 2023 15:51:34 GMT -5
I was just thinking about this, and getting annoyed once again at their not offer Bogaerts a 6/150ish deal last offseason.
But now that they've extended Devers I'm feeling at least a little bit mollified about that. No one thinks Bogaerts can stay at SS for too many more years, and if they have Devers at 3B and Casas at 1B where does he play? LF? Well a) I'm old enough to remember the last time the team said "ehh, how hard could it be for a former SS to play LF?" with Hanley. (Answer: it's incredibly hard.) And b) how much value does Xander really have as a LFer? Especially if his batted ball profile is the harbinger of decline that it looks like it might be, he's like a 2 WAR players and sinking out there by like 2025.
It seems likely to me that they decided at some point that they could only keep one of Devers and Bogaerts for this reason. And their preference all along was to keep Devers. But when they couldn't agree on an extension with Devers last offseason they went to their plan B of trying to keep Bogaerts at a reasonable price. And when that didn't work they went to their plan C of basically paying whatever it took to keep Devers.
I think Xander can play SS as long as Story can. I will never believe that they signed Story to play next to X. They replaced X last year, low-balled him figuring sure if he’ll come at a bargain we’ll take it… but that was it. When they signed noodle arm, X was toast. Yes, but all that fits with plan A. The 6/160 offer (plus a willingness to go somewhat higher, according to Speier) was not a token offer; it was a real bid to keep him. But then they got Preller'd and it was on to plan C.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jan 10, 2023 16:15:53 GMT -5
Oh dear ..here we go again.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 10, 2023 16:21:55 GMT -5
Spring Training hadn't even started yet and the Red Sox already lost Story until June/July. Just wait until we get into the season with Chris Sale - 48.1 IP in 3 years James Paxton - 221. IP in 3 years Justin Turner - 38 years old Corey Kluber - 37 years old with injuries the two years prior to last year Kenley Jansen - Will need to forcefully adjust his throwing routine with the pitch clock as he was the slowest pitcher in the majors, I'm suspecting there's going to be a risk to injury in changing your pace.
I'm not feeling great about this team and Story was one of the key pieces they needed to right the ship from last year.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 10, 2023 16:23:45 GMT -5
I was just thinking about this, and getting annoyed once again at their not offer Bogaerts a 6/150ish deal last offseason.
But now that they've extended Devers I'm feeling at least a little bit mollified about that. No one thinks Bogaerts can stay at SS for too many more years, and if they have Devers at 3B and Casas at 1B where does he play? LF? Well a) I'm old enough to remember the last time the team said "ehh, how hard could it be for a former SS to play LF?" with Hanley. (Answer: it's incredibly hard.) And b) how much value does Xander really have as a LFer? Especially if his batted ball profile is the harbinger of decline that it looks like it might be, he's like a 2 WAR players and sinking out there by like 2025.
It seems likely to me that they decided at some point that they could only keep one of Devers and Bogaerts for this reason. And their preference all along was to keep Devers. But when they couldn't agree on an extension with Devers last offseason they went to their plan B of trying to keep Bogaerts at a reasonable price. And when that didn't work they went to their plan C of basically paying whatever it took to keep Devers.
I think Xander can play SS as long as Story can. I will never believe that they signed Story to play next to X. They replaced X last year, low-balled him figuring sure if he’ll come at a bargain we’ll take it… but that was it. When they signed noodle arm, X was toast. this is definitely a possibility and it is an easy leap to think Story was X's replacement from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Jan 10, 2023 16:38:45 GMT -5
I’ll go on the record as saying that I like Bloom as a GM and I appreciate the good qualities that he offers. This includes 40-man tinkering, amateur evaluation, pro evaluation, farm system strength, etc.
With that said, roster construction is not one of his strong suits thus far. Last year, it made little sense to not have a contingency plan if Dalbec faltered. Right field was…yeah. I’d go as far to say trading Vazquez was not smart if the intention was to compete, considering the message it sent. The bench from year to year has left a lot to be desired.
Here we are in a dire position: an incomplete and paper-thin middle infield in January. Surely there is a way to salvage this year, especially if Story comes back sooner than later, but we’re a day late and a dollar short on improving the club in a meaningful way without a painful and/or unpredictable trade.
Keeping the faith for now. And if anyone can make an unconventional play for talent, it’s Bloom. But I’m not sure he values success in 2023 enough to pay the price.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jan 10, 2023 17:18:47 GMT -5
In no way should there plan have been to play Story or Bogaerts long term at short stop, even outside of Story's elbow concerns. Shortstops do not age well defensively.
It certainly feels like they should've planned better for a potential elbow surgery for Story. They have 3 middle infielders on the 40-man. What kind of planning is that? Did they really think his elbow would be fine with rest? I dunno, I don't really understand the thought process.
Honestly I'm starting to think the worst part of this is all the vitriol now that will kick up towards the front office and especially towards Story. It will be pretty difficult for anyone to think of Story in a positive light now even if he is worth his contract from a WAR/$ perspective.
The nice week we had post Devers extension where everyone was a little bit more chill is definitely over now.
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Jan 10, 2023 17:31:38 GMT -5
I also think the rub lies with the fact that in 2022 and now in 2023, the roster was/is reliant on major contributions from an injury prone player (Sale, Story) on both sides of the ball. Bloom said himself that with Story on the field, the team looked like a playoff caliber team. Which implies a lot, given their overall record.
Not saying it’s easy to build a roster and find worthy replacement pieces, but everyone was banking on Sale coming back strong in 2022 and everyone was banking on Story coming back strong this year.
The 2010 Red Sox overcame significant injuries to Ellsbury and Pedroia that season and finished with 89 wins. The 2013 Sox lost Hanrahan, Bailey, and Miller and we all know how that ended. The good teams are able to overcome, good players step up when needed, and, if you looks at those rosters, there were quality players at nearly every starting position up and down the roster. I understand it’s more difficult to build teams like those given luxury tax implications and whatnot, but these Bloom rosters seem really fragile because of an over-reliance on luck and injury-prone players. Not giving up on this year because baseball can surprise you, but it’s startling to see the perception of the team sink so quickly with the injury of one (1) 4ish WAR player.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 10, 2023 17:44:55 GMT -5
I also think the rub lies with the fact that in 2022 and now in 2023, the roster was/is reliant on major contributions from an injury prone player (Sale, Story) on both sides of the ball. Bloom said himself that with Story on the field, the team looked like a playoff caliber team. Which implies a lot, given their overall record. Not saying it’s easy to build a roster and find worthy replacement pieces, but everyone was banking on Sale coming back strong in 2022 and everyone was banking on Story coming back strong this year. The 2010 Red Sox overcame significant injuries to Ellsbury and Pedroia that season and finished with 89 wins. The 2013 Sox lost Hanrahan, Bailey, and Miller and we all know how that ended. The good teams are able to overcome, good players step up when needed, and, if you looks at those rosters, there were quality players at nearly every starting position up and down the roster. I understand it’s more difficult to build teams like those given luxury tax implications and whatnot, but these Bloom rosters seem really fragile because of an over-reliance on luck and injury-prone players. Not giving up on this year because baseball can surprise you, but it’s startling to see the perception of the team sink so quickly with the injury of one (1) 4ish WAR player. Well, partly because people are wildly overreacting. It's one player, hopefully for only 2-3 months; it doesn't sink the team's entire season.
That's not to say it's not a big deal. By my own quick-and-dirty math, this figured to be about an 86 win team, but that was counting on reversion to the mean with the injuries. This is potentially a BIG injury - their second-best position player in an otherwise weak area of the 40-man roster - and it maybe sets them back by about two wins, from 86 to 84ish. In a way it's fortunate that it happened in the offseason because they still have a chance to plan around it somewhat. But they're right at a level where two fewer wins would make a pretty big difference in their likelihood of making the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 10, 2023 17:59:21 GMT -5
I also think the rub lies with the fact that in 2022 and now in 2023, the roster was/is reliant on major contributions from an injury prone player (Sale, Story) on both sides of the ball. Bloom said himself that with Story on the field, the team looked like a playoff caliber team. Which implies a lot, given their overall record. Not saying it’s easy to build a roster and find worthy replacement pieces, but everyone was banking on Sale coming back strong in 2022 and everyone was banking on Story coming back strong this year. The 2010 Red Sox overcame significant injuries to Ellsbury and Pedroia that season and finished with 89 wins. The 2013 Sox lost Hanrahan, Bailey, and Miller and we all know how that ended. The good teams are able to overcome, good players step up when needed, and, if you looks at those rosters, there were quality players at nearly every starting position up and down the roster. I understand it’s more difficult to build teams like those given luxury tax implications and whatnot, but these Bloom rosters seem really fragile because of an over-reliance on luck and injury-prone players. Not giving up on this year because baseball can surprise you, but it’s startling to see the perception of the team sink so quickly with the injury of one (1) 4ish WAR player. Well, partly because people are wildly overreacting. It's one player, hopefully for only 2-3 months; it doesn't sink the team's entire season.
That's not to say it's not a big deal. By my own quick-and-dirty math, this figured to be about an 86 win team, but that was counting on reversion to the mean with the injuries. This is potentially a BIG injury - their second-best position player in an otherwise weak area of the 40-man roster - and it maybe sets them back by about two wins, from 86 to 84ish. In a way it's fortunate that it happened in the offseason because they still have a chance to plan around it somewhat. But they're right at a level where two fewer wins would make a pretty big difference in their likelihood of making the playoffs.
This is an honest question: your 86 win total… how many lost games does that assume for guys? I am assuming it is projections that have, say, Sale making about 20ish starts? I think this injury is just an awful specially poorly timed one, but we obviously should expect more. It just is how it is, and this is an unusually fragile team. As a side note, for all the talk about building depth, it is stunning how few internal options there are. I mean… even *bad* options are scarce.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 10, 2023 18:08:15 GMT -5
Well, partly because people are wildly overreacting. It's one player, hopefully for only 2-3 months; it doesn't sink the team's entire season.
That's not to say it's not a big deal. By my own quick-and-dirty math, this figured to be about an 86 win team, but that was counting on reversion to the mean with the injuries. This is potentially a BIG injury - their second-best position player in an otherwise weak area of the 40-man roster - and it maybe sets them back by about two wins, from 86 to 84ish. In a way it's fortunate that it happened in the offseason because they still have a chance to plan around it somewhat. But they're right at a level where two fewer wins would make a pretty big difference in their likelihood of making the playoffs.
This is an honest question: your 86 win total… how many lost games does that assume for guys? I am assuming it is projections that have, say, Sale making about 20ish starts? I think this injury is just an awful specially poorly timed one, but we obviously should expect more. It just is how it is, and this is an unusually fragile team. As a side note, for all the talk about building depth, it is stunning how few internal options there are. I mean… even *bad* options are scarce. It was assuming average injury luck, and acknowledges the relative riskiness of some guys (so year, Sale making 20 starts would be "average luck").
A two win improvement based on slightly better health is not terribly aggressive, I don't think, and is still achievable - simply based on how bad their luck was last year.
Of course there's no rule you can't be unlucky two years in a row...
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 10, 2023 18:23:59 GMT -5
This is an honest question: your 86 win total… how many lost games does that assume for guys? I am assuming it is projections that have, say, Sale making about 20ish starts? I think this injury is just an awful specially poorly timed one, but we obviously should expect more. It just is how it is, and this is an unusually fragile team. As a side note, for all the talk about building depth, it is stunning how few internal options there are. I mean… even *bad* options are scarce. It was assuming average injury luck, and acknowledges the relative riskiness of some guys (so year, Sale making 20 starts would be "average luck").
A two win improvement based on slightly better health is not terribly aggressive, I don't think, and is still achievable - simply based on how bad their luck was last year.
Of course there's no rule you can't be unlucky two years in a row...
I just think it is generous to call this luck. He was a TJ concern before they signed him. www.audacy.com/weei/sports/red-sox/why-teams-reportedly-are-fearful-of-signing-trevor-storySo you make your luck.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 10, 2023 18:35:45 GMT -5
It was assuming average injury luck, and acknowledges the relative riskiness of some guys (so year, Sale making 20 starts would be "average luck").
A two win improvement based on slightly better health is not terribly aggressive, I don't think, and is still achievable - simply based on how bad their luck was last year.
Of course there's no rule you can't be unlucky two years in a row...
I just think it is generous to call this luck. He was a TJ concern before they signed him. www.audacy.com/weei/sports/red-sox/why-teams-reportedly-are-fearful-of-signing-trevor-storySo you make your luck. "acknowledges the relative riskiness of some guys (so yeah, Sale making 20 starts would be "average luck")"
But broadly, I don't think this is an especially injury-prone roster beyond Sale. Paxton, yes, but they're not counting on him for that much, and they have the pitching depth to withstand injuries better than they did last year.
Or if they are injury-prone, what are the Yankees, with their reliance on Judge, Stanton, Rodon, Severino, and Montas? Or the Blue Jays, with Springer, Ryu, and Kiermaier? Etc.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 10, 2023 18:39:51 GMT -5
"acknowledges the relative riskiness of some guys (so yeah, Sale making 20 starts would be "average luck")" Did it account for Story? Put him at max. half season? Just wait until they get “unlucky” and Paxton blows up like a Spinal Tap drummer.
|
|
|