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.
Will the Red Sox add a front line starter for 2025?
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 7, 2024 17:41:52 GMT -5
Who we are defining as front line starters? The sexy names usually mentioned are Burnes, Fried, & Sasaki via free agency, and Skubal & Crochet via trade. Other free agents of note likely will include Blake Snell, Nate Eovaldi, and Jack Flaherty. I’m defining them as guys who would slot in unquestionably as our top starter. I would agree with most of the guys you mention except Flaherty and maybe Nate. I’m thinking one of the last 2 names you listed will be high on their list to sign. No draft pick compensation going out would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by bellhorndingers21 on Aug 7, 2024 18:32:57 GMT -5
Who we are defining as front line starters? The sexy names usually mentioned are Burnes, Fried, & Sasaki via free agency, and Skubal & Crochet via trade. Other free agents of note likely will include Blake Snell, Nate Eovaldi, and Jack Flaherty. Eovaldi is 39 innings away from his option vesting. I think they'll trade for Sandy Alcantara.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 7, 2024 18:45:06 GMT -5
Who we are defining as front line starters? The sexy names usually mentioned are Burnes, Fried, & Sasaki via free agency, and Skubal & Crochet via trade. Other free agents of note likely will include Blake Snell, Nate Eovaldi, and Jack Flaherty. Eovaldi is 39 innings away from his option vesting. I think they'll trade for Sandy Alcantara. It's a mutual option and I'd imagine the chances are high that he declines it as he can almost certainly get more guaranteed money by becoming an FA.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Aug 7, 2024 18:45:16 GMT -5
Who we are defining as front line starters? The sexy names usually mentioned are Burnes, Fried, & Sasaki via free agency, and Skubal & Crochet via trade. Other free agents of note likely will include Blake Snell, Nate Eovaldi, and Jack Flaherty. Eovaldi is 39 innings away from his option vesting. I think they'll trade for Sandy Alcantara. He would be hard to put a price on. Miami has better starters on the 60 DL than active roster.
|
|
|
Post by bellhorndingers21 on Aug 7, 2024 18:49:54 GMT -5
Eovaldi is 39 innings away from his option vesting. I think they'll trade for Sandy Alcantara. It's a mutual option and I'd imagine the chances are high that he declines it as he can almost certainly get more guaranteed money by becoming an FA. Missed that, thanks for the clarification!
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Aug 7, 2024 19:02:52 GMT -5
Eovaldi is 39 innings away from his option vesting. I think they'll trade for Sandy Alcantara. It's a mutual option and I'd imagine the chances are high that he declines it as he can almost certainly get more guaranteed money by becoming an FA. Out of curiosity how does a vesting mutual option in a contract benefit either side?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 7, 2024 19:06:56 GMT -5
It's a mutual option and I'd imagine the chances are high that he declines it as he can almost certainly get more guaranteed money by becoming an FA. Out of curiosity how does a vesting mutual option in a contract benefit either side? I guess it's actually not mutual so I misspoke on that. It is a vesting player option based on if he pitches 300 innings over 2023-2024 season.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Aug 7, 2024 19:08:35 GMT -5
Out of curiosity how does a vesting mutual option in a contract benefit either side? I guess it's actually not mutual so I misspoke on that. It is a vesting player option based on if he pitches 300 innings over 2023-2024 season. I was trying to understand Giolito's conditional option as much as whatever Eovaldi has
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 7, 2024 19:10:58 GMT -5
I guess it's actually not mutual so I misspoke on that. It is a vesting player option based on if he pitches 300 innings over 2023-2024 season. I was trying to understand Giolito's conditional option as much as whatever Eovaldi has Eovaldis does seem kind of pointless. I guess the thought being if he gets to the 300 innings but had a bad 2024 season then he would pick it up? I guess there's still a chance he may but feels like he can do better than 20M guaranteed. Could see him getting another 2-3 years at 15-17 perhaps more, I'm not very good at predictions on contracts.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 7, 2024 19:11:05 GMT -5
I like Fried, safer bet with his elite groundball rates
I like Bieber as well in a Hendricks like contract
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 7, 2024 20:16:26 GMT -5
I'm guessing what they do probably depends on two things: 1) How Bello and Priester pitch the rest of the year. The better they pitch the more conservative I'd think they'll be in the offseason. 2) How expensive FA pitchers are. I want them to go after Barnes or Fried aggressively, but if it takes 8/$320M then I'd maybe see what the trade market has to offer. Just to throw another name out there, I'm still on the Logan Gilbert bandwagon. I think Priester starts in AAA next year. Seems like an ideal place for team building.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 8, 2024 1:28:12 GMT -5
It's great that there's a lot of money coming off the books but it guarantees you nothing, in terms of which guy you can sign. It takes two to tango. To wit:
- If BAL's new ownership is willing to spend on Burnes, I don't think BOS stands much of a chance of luring him away. Which young core would you rather pitch with, theirs or ours? Throw in the fact that he's already in that clubhouse for a season and the decision skews much more southward.
- Whether his option vests or not, Eovaldi already divulged that in his last turn through FA that he narrowed his options to TEX and BOS. Since then, he won a new ring in Dallas and most of his Red Sox teammates, even from 2022, are already scattered to the four winds. I can't help but wonder if he asked the Rangers not to trade him and he's planning to make another push next year pitching alongside a healthy deGrom (kind of an oxymoron, I know).
The point, obviously, is that FA pitchers can have motivations other than money, especially when the difference is between two sums that both guarantee that your grandchildren's grandchildren will never want for anything in their lives.
Trading for a pitcher allows you to target the guy you want and he cannot choose to be traded to someone else instead. Also, a trade target will be younger and cheaper than an FA and not require a 7-10 year commitment far past his prime. The down side, of course, is that you have to hug some of your top prospects for one last time before letting them go -- but if you believe that the purpose of a farm system is to produce talent for the big league club, should it matter where that talent originally signed?
That said, what if you offer a guy like Burnes or Fried $50m for one year, perhaps with a mutual option for a second, and pay as you go for prime years? Would someone in that tier be willing to defer their huge 8-year payday for a year to increase it by that much?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 8, 2024 2:28:15 GMT -5
It's incomprehensible to me why the Sox would give up assets in a trade when they can simply sign Burnes as a Free Agent. The price will be crazy but will only get even more crazy and the Sox haven't gone the drunken sailor route in awhile. He seems to be very durable and has been great every years since 2021. If he blows out his arm by some bad stroke of luck the only person who loses is John Henry. I understand the thought process here, and it's fair to lean this way, but there are pitfalls: - If the Red Sox were to sign Burnes they would have to forfeit a 2nd rd pick and 500k in international signing money (assuming he receives a QO, which seems certain), so they would still have to give up 'some' assets
- Burnes would have to want to sign with the Red Sox. At this point I don't think we know whether he would want to, but he's originally from California and went to college in California, so it's possible he would prefer a west-coast team (this isn't to say the highest offer wouldn't win out, but we don't know for sure).
- We've had an ace who couldn't pitch for the past several seasons and John Henry hasn't raised the player budget to account for this, so it's fair to predict he wouldn't if Burnes were to get badly injured. So the people who most want the team to win would suffer the most, being us, the fans.
- Burnes will be 30 going into next season while a player like Crochet will only be 25. The team may prefer to gamble their money on a younger player.
It's fair to have Burnes as 'plan-A', but if that's the case, hopefully there's a good 'plan-B'.
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,524
|
Post by asm18 on Aug 8, 2024 7:16:35 GMT -5
- We've had an ace who couldn't pitch for the past several seasons and John Henry hasn't raised the player budget to account for this, so it's fair to predict he wouldn't if Burnes were to get badly injured. So the people who most want the team to win would suffer the most, being us, the fans.
I would add to this that the last time the Red Sox gave out the largest pitching contract of all time (circa December 2015), they both: 1) won the World Series, in large part due to that pitcher! 2) traded our MVP outfielder (in part) to get off the rest of that pitcher’s contract I will happily take outcome #1 again, but not gonna lie there is some PTSD from #2. I’d love to know whether ownership would be willing just eat it if a Burnes deal flopped, or if I should be emotionally prepared to send Roman Anthony & an aged Burnes to the Dodgers in 5 years. That is what gives me pause on the clear best choice on the market
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 8, 2024 7:23:55 GMT -5
It's incomprehensible to me why the Sox would give up assets in a trade when they can simply sign Burnes as a Free Agent. The price will be crazy but will only get even more crazy and the Sox haven't gone the drunken sailor route in awhile. He seems to be very durable and has been great every years since 2021. If he blows out his arm by some bad stroke of luck the only person who loses is John Henry. I understand the thought process here, and it's fair to lean this way, but there are pitfalls: - If the Red Sox were to sign Burnes they would have to forfeit a 2nd rd pick and 500k in international signing money (assuming he receives a QO, which seems certain), so they would still have to give up 'some' assets
- Burnes would have to want to sign with the Red Sox. At this point I don't think we know whether he would want to, but he's originally from California and went to college in California, so it's possible he would prefer a west-coast team (this isn't to say the highest offer wouldn't win out, but we don't know for sure).
- We've had an ace who couldn't pitch for the past several seasons and John Henry hasn't raised the player budget to account for this, so it's fair to predict he wouldn't if Burnes were to get badly injured. So the people who most want the team to win would suffer the most, being us, the fans.
- Burnes will be 30 going into next season while a player like Crochet will only be 25. The team may prefer to gamble their money on a younger player.
It's fair to have Burnes as 'plan-A', but if that's the case, hopefully there's a good 'plan-B'. The idea that the Red Sox should just be the highest bidders because 'the only one who loses is John Henry' is just not how it works. Opportunity cost is real and money is finite, even for professional sports franchises. Any money that goes to Burnes is money that can't go elsewhere. John Henry is not going to give $200+ million to Burnes and then just shrug and add another $30 million to the budget every year if Burnes' blows his arm out. If the Red Sox are directing $200 million toward something over the next 8 years, there are absolutely going to be paths the team cannot take because of that financial commitment. The Boston Red Sox, despite all their resources, do have constraints.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 8, 2024 7:42:26 GMT -5
I understand the thought process here, and it's fair to lean this way, but there are pitfalls: - If the Red Sox were to sign Burnes they would have to forfeit a 2nd rd pick and 500k in international signing money (assuming he receives a QO, which seems certain), so they would still have to give up 'some' assets
- Burnes would have to want to sign with the Red Sox. At this point I don't think we know whether he would want to, but he's originally from California and went to college in California, so it's possible he would prefer a west-coast team (this isn't to say the highest offer wouldn't win out, but we don't know for sure).
- We've had an ace who couldn't pitch for the past several seasons and John Henry hasn't raised the player budget to account for this, so it's fair to predict he wouldn't if Burnes were to get badly injured. So the people who most want the team to win would suffer the most, being us, the fans.
- Burnes will be 30 going into next season while a player like Crochet will only be 25. The team may prefer to gamble their money on a younger player.
It's fair to have Burnes as 'plan-A', but if that's the case, hopefully there's a good 'plan-B'. The idea that the Red Sox should just be the highest bidders because 'the only one who loses is John Henry' is just not how it works. Opportunity cost is real and money is finite, even for professional sports franchises. Any money that goes to Burnes is money that can't go elsewhere. John Henry is not going to give $200+ million to Burnes and then just shrug and add another $30 million to the budget every year if Burnes' blows his arm out. If the Red Sox are directing $200 million toward something over the next 8 years, there are absolutely going to be paths the team cannot take because of that financial commitment. The Boston Red Sox, despite all their resources, do have constraints. I won't dispute nor do I think anyone else is really disputing this. The organization has a set budget and yes plunging $40M a year into a pitcher is going put a large dent into it. I still would rather pay the tag on Burnes than to take a hatchet to the farm system in a trade for a cheaper front of the line pitcher though.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2024 8:45:44 GMT -5
The idea that the Red Sox should just be the highest bidders because 'the only one who loses is John Henry' is just not how it works. Opportunity cost is real and money is finite, even for professional sports franchises. Any money that goes to Burnes is money that can't go elsewhere. John Henry is not going to give $200+ million to Burnes and then just shrug and add another $30 million to the budget every year if Burnes' blows his arm out. If the Red Sox are directing $200 million toward something over the next 8 years, there are absolutely going to be paths the team cannot take because of that financial commitment. The Boston Red Sox, despite all their resources, do have constraints. I won't dispute nor do I think anyone else is really disputing this. The organization has a set budget and yes plunging $40M a year into a pitcher is going put a large dent into it. I still would rather pay the tag on Burnes than to take a hatchet to the farm system in a trade for a cheaper front of the line pitcher though. Yup. Having young cheap all star type caliber players allows a team to have the money to go get what they need and tou can never have to much pitching. It would be easier for me to swallow them spending big bucks on a pitcher who disappoints or more likely is a stones throwaway from TJS, as is the case with virtually all pitchers today than to give up a Roman Anthony, and watch him become a superstar elsewhere, and other valuable youngsters leave the organization while the pitcher they acquire is a 160 inning per year guy a stone's throw away from TJS. My thinking comes from this. As much as I like Abreu, I ultimately think Anthony will be better. I think he will he a cornerstone multiple all star player. Abreu is a good ballplayer but not an all star type, nor one that can play every day. Now that's certainly a debatable opinion I have and I can understand those who think Anthony wont be much better than Abreu if he is at all, but that's not where I'm coming from. Then I look at the value of starting pitching today. The days of guys consistently going 200 plus innings per day and extremely impacting the games they start and facing 800 - 1000 batters per year are gone. Even the so called aces dont go far and long. Almost everybody is lathered up over Crochet, a guy not even willing to pitch in the postseason if he isnt given big bucks first, and has had 20 good starts in his career, as if he were Pedro coming off a Cy Young season with an ERA under 2 or even Skubal who hasn't exactly been stellar until this point as investments as guys who may or may not hit their primes. Hey, I'd love to have them, but I wouldnt sacrifice Anthony plus to make that happen. I'd rather have Anthony in RF with Abreu dealt for a 2/3 starter down the road. Especially with starters having less and less impact on games, even these 170 inning aces. And I dont see the Sox investing in Duran's 30s any more than they invested in Ellsbury's 30s, and investing in Carl Crawford's 30s was a mistake they got rid of quickly enough, so by time Duran's time is up, Montgomery should be just about ready and the Sox ultimately end of with Anthony and Montgomery manning the corners with Rafaela in CF. So I keep hearing the Sox are a big market team willing to spend, even past the luxury tax 2 out of 3 years if necessary. Great. Plow that money into Burnes who is right in his prime and has been healthy and consistent or Fried who has a proven track record of being an ace, and a lefty the Sox lack (beyond the rental known as James Paxton). Use their so called financial advantage. Here is where I pause to acknowledge the fly on the ointment that it takes 2 to tango, but at this point I see no reason the Sox cant be top bidders. What else would they be using their big bucks for? Unless the next Manny, Pujols, or Cabrera is on the market, then use it on pitching. Now if the Sox threw a ton of money at Soto and get him, then yeah, Anthony becomes expendable and you can go that route to get pitching. I dont see the Sox getting Soto because they already slant way too LH, not that that's necessarily an elimination factor but I think he'll wind up staying in NY, whether it's the Yankees or the Mets and Cohen have the temerity to outbid their Steinbrenner pal.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 8, 2024 9:22:39 GMT -5
A good parallel poll to this is to word it as "SHOULD the Red Sox...."
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 8, 2024 9:57:30 GMT -5
The idea that the Red Sox should just be the highest bidders because 'the only one who loses is John Henry' is just not how it works. Opportunity cost is real and money is finite, even for professional sports franchises. Any money that goes to Burnes is money that can't go elsewhere. John Henry is not going to give $200+ million to Burnes and then just shrug and add another $30 million to the budget every year if Burnes' blows his arm out. If the Red Sox are directing $200 million toward something over the next 8 years, there are absolutely going to be paths the team cannot take because of that financial commitment. The Boston Red Sox, despite all their resources, do have constraints. I won't dispute nor do I think anyone else is really disputing this. The organization has a set budget and yes plunging $40M a year into a pitcher is going put a large dent into it. I still would rather pay the tag on Burnes than to take a hatchet to the farm system in a trade for a cheaper front of the line pitcher though. I won't advocate for trading any prospects to obtain a starter, but I don't think Breslow should completely write it off either. Over the last 20 years the top 5 starters by fWAR have been Lester, Beckett, Sale, Schilling, and ERod - 4 trades and a guy we developed internally. Of the 3 largest FA signings - Price, Dice-K, and Lackey - we don't see anyone until Price at #10. Pitching is 2024 is very different than it used to be, but the Red Sox under Henry have a much better track record of trading for pitchers than signing them.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 8, 2024 10:05:08 GMT -5
I won't dispute nor do I think anyone else is really disputing this. The organization has a set budget and yes plunging $40M a year into a pitcher is going put a large dent into it. I still would rather pay the tag on Burnes than to take a hatchet to the farm system in a trade for a cheaper front of the line pitcher though. I won't advocate for trading any prospects to obtain a starter, but I don't think Breslow should completely write it off either. Over the last 20 years the top 5 starters by fWAR have been Lester, Beckett, Sale, Schilling, and ERod - 4 trades and a guy we developed internally. Of the 3 largest FA signings - Price, Dice-K, and Lackey - we don't see anyone until Price at #10. Pitching is 2024 is very different than it used to be, but the Red Sox under Henry have a much better track record of trading for pitchers than signing them. Fair enough, if a good trade falls in his lap then he should go for it. I won't disagree with that but it's hard to foresee that happening. I really do loathe to trade any of the big three but if they can get a true front of the line guy for just one of them and not much else via trade he should probably do it. Perhaps he can get creative and uncover a starter that they can develop to that next level also.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 8, 2024 11:13:23 GMT -5
The idea that the Red Sox should just be the highest bidders because 'the only one who loses is John Henry' is just not how it works. Opportunity cost is real and money is finite, even for professional sports franchises. Any money that goes to Burnes is money that can't go elsewhere. John Henry is not going to give $200+ million to Burnes and then just shrug and add another $30 million to the budget every year if Burnes' blows his arm out. If the Red Sox are directing $200 million toward something over the next 8 years, there are absolutely going to be paths the team cannot take because of that financial commitment. The Boston Red Sox, despite all their resources, do have constraints. I won't dispute nor do I think anyone else is really disputing this. The organization has a set budget and yes plunging $40M a year into a pitcher is going put a large dent into it. I still would rather pay the tag on Burnes than to take a hatchet to the farm system in a trade for a cheaper front of the line pitcher though. I mean, wouldn't we all? Not our money and there appears to be plenty of it. You just have longer odds of pulling off the signing than you do the trade (sorry, "just outbid everyone," isn't a viable strategy -- worked with Price, didn't work with Yamamoto and many, many others). There's a lot more landing spots than arms and guys have personal preferences. Maybe if you overpay in AAV on shorter time you can avoid being stuck with an albatross for most of a decade. That's still reliant on the pitcher willing to bet on himself (i.e. on his mighty UCL and labrum) and defer a long-term deal. I guess I would try the AAV overpay first, then an albatross long-term deal, then a trade. I would try them all though. We need an ace for this window.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 8, 2024 11:14:37 GMT -5
A good parallel poll to this is to word it as "SHOULD the Red Sox...." I considered that but I think everyone would've just checked the "Spend Henry's money" box.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Aug 8, 2024 11:17:09 GMT -5
People keep talking about moving Abreu for a 2/3 but that's going to require a really specific trade partner that's in "compete now" mode and also has an expendable 2/3 SP. A team like the White Sox doesn't benefit nearly as much from Abreu as they would a prospect that aligns more with their contention window.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 8, 2024 11:27:17 GMT -5
People keep talking about moving Abreu for a 2/3 but that's going to require a really specific trade partner that's in "compete now" mode and also has an expendable 2/3 SP. A team like the White Sox doesn't benefit nearly as much from Abreu as they would a prospect that aligns more with their contention window. It would seem almost too good of a match to be true but I'd zero in on the Mariners if I was Breslow and preferred the trade route. Their offense stinks and their pitching is good. Removing guys with less than 40 games played for the Mariners Abreu would be their best hitter by wRC+ and their 2nd best everyday player by fWAR behind Cal Raleigh. Now maybe after dealing for Arozarena and an assumed bounce back for J-Rod they may not be that interested in Wilyer but if you added Wilyer to that OF that sure would be a really good OF.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2024 11:36:23 GMT -5
I keep coming back to these things.
1) Who is a starting pitcher that you'd be dying to trade for? The names I've heard are Crochet and Scrubal? I'm trying to think of a guy who is beginning a trajectory or even has a trajectory going where you can say, well if he keeps this up, this guy is going to pitch in a lot of all-star games or be a HOFer. Only Skenes really comes to mind. How many guys have consistently even pitched enough to be qualified for the ERA title and have consistently kept an ERA of 3.5 or lower? Not too many. Burnes certainly comes to mind quickly enough.
There's just not a lot of these guys available in a deal. So it's well they had a good season - lets project them forward as T.O.R starters, which is fine, but I'd hate to part with prospects the caliber of the Big 3.
The last time there was a starter like that, it was Chris Sale. The Sox paid with prospects, but boy, did they make the right decisions. Can you imagine if Devers had been the hard demand by the White Sox and that's what the Sox surrendered to get Sale? Apparently it was Benintendi or Moncada, and there was already concerns about Moncada's dieting and conditioning and maturity. And the other big piece was Kopech who people weren't sure was going to be a starter or just a reliever and also had some maturity concerns.
When they acquired Schilling, he was toward the end of his career and the Sox totally fleeced Arizona who strangely preferred to be fleeced by the Sox that deal with the Yankees. At that point, I think a number of us had soured on Casey Fossum, and I'm sure Brandon Lyon was no deterrent to making that deal, lol.
And when the Sox acquired Pedro, Pavano was a good pitching prospect who would go on to have a decent career. For one year of Pedro that's probably a deal not to make, but Duquette didn't make the deal intending for it to be that way - he was armed with a contract offer which I think was the biggest in the game at that time. And if it's a choice of Pedro for 7 years at big money or Pavano plus Armas Jr. pitching at low money, it was a no-brainer of a trade.
Those are higher caliber, more impactful pitchers, than what the Sox are seeking now. I just hope they don't pay as huge a price in talent than they have in the past. Even before those deals, for older fans, the Sox traded a veteran pitcher in Rick Wise on the downside of his career, a decent young pitcher whose ceiling was eh, and a prospect who had a Rudy Pemberton 1996 like September but wasn't that big a prospect in Ted Cox to reel in Dennis Eckersley who was available because of what was going on between him, Manning, and his wife. Mike Paxton had a decent 1977 season but he had nowhere near the upside of young 23 year old ace Eck.
Before that the Sox surrendered a backup utility guy in Juan Beniquez to headline a trade for a stud pitcher in Fergie Jenkins.
I'm sure you can say it's easy to look back and say, "Hey those guys didn't pan out, but they didn't know that at the time."
But it's clear they didn't trade the crown jewels. I know Moncada was very highly regarded but except for the 2019 season I had no times where I wished he was on the team. I'm wondering if we could truly say that about Anthony if it comes to that.
I guess when I think of those pitchers from then and their impact and what the starting pitchers are today and their impact - do they even make to 300 innings over 2 seasons before it TJS time? I mean you relievers turned starters like Ranger Suarez who suddenly turn into temporary aces that don't see to last very long. You certainly wouldn't trade Anthony for a reliever you hope turns into Suarez, would you? I wouldn't.
That's where I'm at. I hate seeing starting pitchers throw less and less innings and get more and more money, but I think that's the lesser of the two evils at this point, unless the Sox do an excellent job of figuring out whose value is artificially high and won't turn into what their ceiling points towards.
|
|
|