Should Dombrowski Consider EE?
- Thread starter Darnell's Son
- Start date
I would like them to consider it but I think it's highly unlikely that they will. All of DD's comments have been inconsistent with that. The Moreland 1B/Hanley DH, and Hanley 1B/Chris Young DH program seems to be already what they intend. I also think that would blow through the luxury tax line. So while I would do this if I could wave a magic wand, I think there isn't much to see here.
With arb estimates added to the cot's sheet you get to something right around the LT threshold, so yeah, this would take them well past it. They'd have to trade Buchholz to even hope to get back under, and probably more. So it would likely require a decision to live past that threshold for another season and then to attempt to get back under in 2018.
The problem there is that with arb awards going up in year 2 for Bogaerts and Bradley, and the addition of Betts to that group, the chances of their payroll going down next winter are probably slim and the threshold only jumps up around 2M.
So it gets complicated if they have any hope to participate in the high end free agent market next winter. That said, there's not a lot of room on the roster for a new superstar anyway, so that might be a moot point. And if they can find a trade partner for part or all of Sandoval's contract because he gets off to a good start this year, that eases the crunch considerably. They could also look to trade Hanley to free some payroll up if, say, Sam Travis looks like he's going to be an above average bat. There are a lot of potentially moving parts to consider.
But as far as their window goes, while it could be a very strong window of contention for the next three years, 2017 is probably going to be their strongest roster if for no other reason that the vets will age and likely decline a bit each year going forward. So an Encarnacion acquisition would be likely to pay dividends in the playoffs sooner rather than later.
The problem there is that with arb awards going up in year 2 for Bogaerts and Bradley, and the addition of Betts to that group, the chances of their payroll going down next winter are probably slim and the threshold only jumps up around 2M.
So it gets complicated if they have any hope to participate in the high end free agent market next winter. That said, there's not a lot of room on the roster for a new superstar anyway, so that might be a moot point. And if they can find a trade partner for part or all of Sandoval's contract because he gets off to a good start this year, that eases the crunch considerably. They could also look to trade Hanley to free some payroll up if, say, Sam Travis looks like he's going to be an above average bat. There are a lot of potentially moving parts to consider.
But as far as their window goes, while it could be a very strong window of contention for the next three years, 2017 is probably going to be their strongest roster if for no other reason that the vets will age and likely decline a bit each year going forward. So an Encarnacion acquisition would be likely to pay dividends in the playoffs sooner rather than later.
I think signing him would be a great move. It seems like he can probably be had for 4/80-90. Make sure there is no NTC and then trade him for prospects after winning a title. Might have to eat a bit of salary to get the best return but thats like paying cash for prospects, nothing wrong with that
No. They already have 97 mil committed in 2019 to just Price/Porcello/Sandoval/Pedroia/Castillo. That's at best 4 non-bench players, more likely 3. Pick up Sale's option and it's 110 mil. Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Swihart, E-Rod, Kelly, Pomeranz, Wright, Vazquez, Thornburg...whichever of them are still here, none will be pre-arb and (and super cheap) anymore. Unless they're prepared to blow past the luxury tax, they're going to need that money, especially since they are thin as far as low-cost guys to offset the spending in 2019. I sure hope Devers works out.
Did they? That would give them a little more wiggle room but still, if we want Xander and Mookie extended, they'll be counting quite a bit toward the tax calculation (which is AAV and not the current year of what might be a back loaded deal). Unless it's something absurd like a one or two year deal (which it won't be), pass.
Let's also not forget that with he depletion of the farm system (and future cheap talent), not a good year to be giving up a draft pick.
My initial reaction is no but I guess it really depends on how friendly the terms are. I have a hard time seeing him signing in June though, and if he did it would be to finish out the year and try FA again without the first round pick price tag on his head. Plus, him missing the first 50 games of the season and then needing even more time to get up to game speed doesn't entirely match up with GFIN mode. The games in April and May count.
The sox pick is estimated to return about $20 million in value so if they could sign EE for 3 years for 10-15 mil less than market value, it would probably be a smart signing given the fact they are in GFIN mode. Plus, EE could always be traded for prospects later on if there is no NTC.
The sox pick is estimated to return about $20 million in value so if they could sign EE for 3 years for 10-15 mil less than market value, it would probably be a smart signing given the fact they are in GFIN mode. Plus, EE could always be traded for prospects later on if there is no NTC.
Can we agree on a definition of "GFIN mode"? Is it a one-year thing? Two, three?
Because in spite of the big trade for Sale and the so-called stripping of the farm system, I don't see this team as being in GFIN mode at all. Yes, they're loaded and built to win, but this window is open for the next 3-4 years, not coincidentally aligned with the cost-controlled years of budding stars like Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, Rodriguez, etc. They're already viewed as the favorites in the AL East and the AL in general. Is the marginal improvement that Encarnacion would bring (in terms of wins) really necessary for success? Enough to be worth the salary, the luxury tax penalty, and the pick? I'm not so sure.
I think if Encarnacion were in the plans, he'd be signed already. That he isn't tells me he wasn't ever on their radar and they've addressed the post-Ortiz need in the lineup for the time being. I don't think Encarnacion's market drying up and potentially causing his price to drop does much to change the equation.
Because in spite of the big trade for Sale and the so-called stripping of the farm system, I don't see this team as being in GFIN mode at all. Yes, they're loaded and built to win, but this window is open for the next 3-4 years, not coincidentally aligned with the cost-controlled years of budding stars like Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Benintendi, Rodriguez, etc. They're already viewed as the favorites in the AL East and the AL in general. Is the marginal improvement that Encarnacion would bring (in terms of wins) really necessary for success? Enough to be worth the salary, the luxury tax penalty, and the pick? I'm not so sure.
I think if Encarnacion were in the plans, he'd be signed already. That he isn't tells me he wasn't ever on their radar and they've addressed the post-Ortiz need in the lineup for the time being. I don't think Encarnacion's market drying up and potentially causing his price to drop does much to change the equation.
He has started a grand total of 16 games at 1B in his career. Zero in the last two years.
He hasn't played 3B since 2013. A year in which he played a total of 21 innings over there.
He is a RF/DH who does not fit in "lots of spots".
Pretty sure the no trade on free agents until after June 15th rule still stands, so guessing "the plan" would be that we either default Moreland one of the 4 bench spots, or just straight out release him immediately after EE signs. While then essentially writing in the extra $5m as part of EE's acquisition cost (since that would make an already sticky situation even more dirty if we were to wait and not even give Moreland a chance to catch on somewhere else before the season started).
Joey Batts might be okay in LF in Fenway, but if you watched him play last year, you know he's done as an OF - and EE never was a glove guy; they're both DHs.
There's been a rumour circulating that JB might take the QO. What's the deadline on that?
I'd much rather have EE, but I'm guessing the prices will reflect that.
Bautista's bat is trending the wrong way. He is a terrible RF, hasn't played LF anywhere since 2009 (only 50 games in his career), and LF at Fenway is no picnic for any OF, much less a bad one, and they have 81 games in real left fields to worry about. Part of "making p for Ortiz's loss" is having 3 CF's in the OF for 150 games.
Now we're talking about Bautista in an EE thread that itself was unnecessary because we've talked about him in the off season thread?
Guys, why did DD sign Moreland so quickly? He CLEARLY fills an identified need in a cost effective way. (Both of those parts are significant - this team is not operating with a bottomless wallet.). So, Moreland as the primary 1Bman, with Hanley the primary DH. Where is Bats or EE going to play, and in place of whom?
I understand the desire for more lumber in the lineup with Papi gone. That's not where we're going. We've upgraded pitching and D, while sticking to a budget. That's the pretty obvious strategy to me.
Guys, why did DD sign Moreland so quickly? He CLEARLY fills an identified need in a cost effective way. (Both of those parts are significant - this team is not operating with a bottomless wallet.). So, Moreland as the primary 1Bman, with Hanley the primary DH. Where is Bats or EE going to play, and in place of whom?
I understand the desire for more lumber in the lineup with Papi gone. That's not where we're going. We've upgraded pitching and D, while sticking to a budget. That's the pretty obvious strategy to me.
The QO deadline passed on November 14th .. that ship has long sailed.
Joey Bats is strictly a DH now .. although he could probably play 1B. In his prime he was a good RF with an excellent arm. But he hurt it a couple of years ago and now has an Ellsburian noodle.
I just don't see a place for either of them.
While I agree that the whole presented concept is highly unlikely post-Moreland signing to begin with, I wouldn't go as far as to label the thread unnecessary. As that article does hit on some aspects which will probably end up being singled out and hotly debated on a regular basis throughout the year anyway.
Even as one of the more vocal people against the EE idea due to age, I did take that stance with the expectation that DD wouldn't just foolishly spend that money elsewhere, and with a full understanding that the call will likely end up looking fairly terrible in the short term. Depending on just how rosy red your glasses are there is still arguably a huge hole left in the lineup, and right now EE is a legit top 10-15 bat who didn't even need the 2016 season's inflated HR totals to put him there. It is also somewhat rare that one of those types actually falls within the perimeters of this FO's spending model (that certainly all but eliminates the likes of a Bryce Harper btw), which is and should be a considered factor here that probably didn't get enough overall play in that offseason thread discussion imo.
If nothing else it definitely made me do a re-think here, that left me not as sold on the overall idea of passing as I was yesterday. I still would pass, but that audible in current plan that leaves us targeting a JD Martinez next winter isn't going to come as cheap as EE might end up being.
That won't help against miller.
2016 regular season Miller faced lefties 74 times giving up .509 OPS. Faced righty 201 times for .449 OPS
2015 regular season 47 lefties for .553 OPS
199 righties for .394 OPS (!).
And so on for 2014.
What will help against the millers of the world is very good starting pitching, great defense and good offense all around so that you are more often than not in front on the scoreboard when you get into the other guys bullpen. A good bullpen of your own wouldn't hurt to keep it that way too.
Everybody did nothing against Miller last post-season until his very last game, when he was probably just out of gas. Teams usually "beat" guys like that by not letting them become relevant in the game.
A RH bat to combat Miller(s): is there a sufficient data base to indicate who was effective against Miller? Certainly not a big-swinging slugger. It would be a compact swinger like Mookie, not like EE. The concept of lefties like Miller is dubious: who is like him?
I think you guys are overthinking the EE/Bautista situation. Or have an Ortiz-hangover. There are two factors:
Here's a list of guys who are FAs in 2018: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/2017-18-mlb-free-agent-list.html
So, there's no reason to commit to two DHs at quasi-premium prices and a multi-year commitment (or to force Hanley back to 1B), as replacing a 1B for 2018 seems very doable. (There's also Travis and Devers and/or another trade, or maybe even Moreland sticks.)
***
As far as the broader picture, here's the Cot's list of Sox Contracts:
Other than that, the core of young players starts thinning out like so:
Xander - FA in 2020.
Betts - 2021
JBJ - 2021
Leon - 2021
Vaz - 2021
Swihart - 2022
10D - 2023?
The rotation starts thinning out like so:
Buch - 2018
Price - 2019 (2022)
Pomeranz - 2019
Porcello - 2020
Sale - 2020
Wright - 2021
E-Rod - 2022
We're set for the 2017 season.
We're set for the 2018 season.
We're set for the 2019 season. (Even if Price opts out at the end of 2018, we have his 30M to apply to acquiring a long term SP in the very very talent rich 2018-2019 class).
In 2020, we'll have the batting core, possibly minus Xander, but the pitching will have to be dealt with, possibly via extensions or the 2018-2019 FA class or such.
In 2021, all bets are off.
So, basically we've got a solid 4 year window, and further out than that is pretty much approaching the "who knows" zone.
- Hanley Rameriez - DH, passible 1B, good to excellent bat, FA in 2020 (2019 vesting option based on PAs). He's here to stay for the next three years.
- Moreland - 1B, meh bat, FA in 2018. Our very own 1 year stopgap.
Here's a list of guys who are FAs in 2018: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/08/2017-18-mlb-free-agent-list.html
So, there's no reason to commit to two DHs at quasi-premium prices and a multi-year commitment (or to force Hanley back to 1B), as replacing a 1B for 2018 seems very doable. (There's also Travis and Devers and/or another trade, or maybe even Moreland sticks.)
***
As far as the broader picture, here's the Cot's list of Sox Contracts:
Other than that, the core of young players starts thinning out like so:
Xander - FA in 2020.
Betts - 2021
JBJ - 2021
Leon - 2021
Vaz - 2021
Swihart - 2022
10D - 2023?
The rotation starts thinning out like so:
Buch - 2018
Price - 2019 (2022)
Pomeranz - 2019
Porcello - 2020
Sale - 2020
Wright - 2021
E-Rod - 2022
We're set for the 2017 season.
We're set for the 2018 season.
We're set for the 2019 season. (Even if Price opts out at the end of 2018, we have his 30M to apply to acquiring a long term SP in the very very talent rich 2018-2019 class).
In 2020, we'll have the batting core, possibly minus Xander, but the pitching will have to be dealt with, possibly via extensions or the 2018-2019 FA class or such.
In 2021, all bets are off.
So, basically we've got a solid 4 year window, and further out than that is pretty much approaching the "who knows" zone.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing your hope in the first base FA class next year. If they believe Sam Travis is legit, then okay. But Hosmer and Santana will each probably go for what EE is going for now, and have as least as many questions.
Also, we have Price through 2018. And that talent-rich FA class is *after* the 2018 season.
Yeah, I wasn't clear about the Price opt out - so I clarified it.
The greater point is that I don't think you want to have EE and Hanley locked up until 2020, at a combined 44M a year, splitting the 1B/DH duties.
So according to @redsoxstats account the Sox are currently 16 mill under the tax after the salary dump of Buch. AAV is what counts for the tax i believe and if we are to believe this
"for EE (won't) sniff that four and $80 mill now, and, though unconfirmed, there have been rumblings that even three and $60 million is in doubt.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/211596028/edwin-encarnacion-free-agent-market
14m on a 4 year deal with opt out after one ? The pick hurts but EE for 14 m is pretty steal worthy if you look at the cartoon contract for Crush Davis and especially for AAV purposes. Also very likely he puts up cartoon numbers in front of wall enters FA with no QO and a year older but still likely to beat 3 for 42.
I'd think about it given how low the pick is.
"for EE (won't) sniff that four and $80 mill now, and, though unconfirmed, there have been rumblings that even three and $60 million is in doubt.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/211596028/edwin-encarnacion-free-agent-market
14m on a 4 year deal with opt out after one ? The pick hurts but EE for 14 m is pretty steal worthy if you look at the cartoon contract for Crush Davis and especially for AAV purposes. Also very likely he puts up cartoon numbers in front of wall enters FA with no QO and a year older but still likely to beat 3 for 42.
I'd think about it given how low the pick is.
Even accepting the speculation that 3/$60M is "in doubt," how do you get to 4 years at $14M per year? That's a big drop from $20M down to $14M. I'm not that optimistic that (a) EE will see such a collapse in his market, or (b) that some other bargain hunting team won't jump in to beat a 4/$56M offer. Even a team like Oakland might beat that.
Like some others, I have a hard time seeing how spending significant money on EE with Hanley Ramirez already on the roster makes financial and roster sense. Or, if DD considered that a possibility, why he would have moved so quickly to add Moreland.
However, if people absolutely need to continue the EE speculation, then one unlikely possibility would be to find a trade partner for Hanley and replace him with EE. Why would a team trade for Hanley when it could just sign EE itself? Maybe the team can't attract a top FA. Maybe a team actually likes Hanley better (shorter contract, arguably better fielding, a little younger - and yes, these are all reaches). Point is, if the Sox thought they could deal Hanley, then they could replace him with EE. That would result in a slight upgrade in the bat and still allow the team to stay under the LT limit. I just don't find that at all likely.
He's going to get his 4/80 deal or close to it. Just won't be with Boston. I member when the Tigers came out of nowhere on a deal for Fielder when it looked like his market was screwed
The QO he turned down was for $17.2M. I have to think that if he goes the "Cespedes" route and signs a deal with an opt-out after year one, his salary would have to be at least equal to the QO for that one year for him to do it.
And if the thinking is a front-loaded deal, say $25M for year one and $31M spread over the last three, with the idea of shrinking the AAV for tax purposes...that won't work. Pretty sure if he opts out after year one, the tax hit is for whatever his salary was in that one year (since the final three years simply disappear).
I don't think there's any world where Encarnacion takes a 1-year salary at whatever the Sox need to stay under the cap. Not unless they find $20M+ of salary space.
EE's market is essentially the AL.
The idea that his floor is 17.2- 20 AAV with nearly every theoretical team ( Hou, Tex, Bos NYY,) gleefully grabbing a mic and saying " Yeah we have nothing to spend" or " not interested we love our pick" is pretty flawed IMHO.
The Blue Jays are an obvious suitor and b/c they don't get penalized the pick probably make the most sense. Sure if EE wants he could also wait and hope for an injury which is how Fielder got paid he may get there.
However, barring the Rockies or someone similar going Ian Desmond like again EE is extremely impacted by his lack of fielding, teams deliberately not contending, and his top contending suitors listed above explicitly saying not interested.
Essentially EE, Bautista, and Trumbo are DH's looking to cash in on dingers but the old pick penalty and the not as high as thought lux tax is going to substantially impact their bottom line.No doubt. There's a reason why Oak and Cle have been linked to him most recently.
The idea that his floor is 17.2- 20 AAV with nearly every theoretical team ( Hou, Tex, Bos NYY,) gleefully grabbing a mic and saying " Yeah we have nothing to spend" or " not interested we love our pick" is pretty flawed IMHO.
The Blue Jays are an obvious suitor and b/c they don't get penalized the pick probably make the most sense. Sure if EE wants he could also wait and hope for an injury which is how Fielder got paid he may get there.
However, barring the Rockies or someone similar going Ian Desmond like again EE is extremely impacted by his lack of fielding, teams deliberately not contending, and his top contending suitors listed above explicitly saying not interested.
Essentially EE, Bautista, and Trumbo are DH's looking to cash in on dingers but the old pick penalty and the not as high as thought lux tax is going to substantially impact their bottom line.No doubt. There's a reason why Oak and Cle have been linked to him most recently.
How about Trumbo with that money? He'd probably take 3x$14 with an opt-out right about now. And he can stand at 3B if you need him to. Or even Napoli at 2X$13 with an opt out. You're giving up the pick, but you're getting a much better bet at better-than-average production. Napoli's season stats are depressed by horrible bookends April/September, from May-August he was a total beast.
"Stand" would probably be the operative word there. Trumbo has played all of 65 innings of 3B in the majors, most of them 5 years ago, and his numbers in that admittedly tiny sample suggest there might be a reason why they got him the hell off of there ASAP, even though their best alternative at the time was the immortal Alberto Callaspo.
Given what he'll presumably cost, and his lack of platoon split (113/110 career, with a reverse wRC+ split over the past three years), I think the only way it makes sense to sign Trumbo is as our primary 1B, relegating Moreland to a 50-start + defensive replacement kind of role a la Mientkiewicz 2004. Which might work, except I don't know if there's enough versatility between those two and Hanley to justify three roster spots.
After these trades in the last year or so, I'd really like to keep the pick. Look at Sox prospects right now is just depressing. a 6'4 SS who can't hit is in the top 10.
The Trey Ball miss really hurts right now.
Don't forget this team needs some money to add to the bullpen as well. I wouldn't have minded a Steve Pearce type. Frankly I'd rather just go get Holland at this point. Bullpen is probably a bigger need and won't cost the much needed draft captial (sox also have nothing from international players after the draconian smackdown earlier this year). They need an infusion of young talent.
The Trey Ball miss really hurts right now.
Don't forget this team needs some money to add to the bullpen as well. I wouldn't have minded a Steve Pearce type. Frankly I'd rather just go get Holland at this point. Bullpen is probably a bigger need and won't cost the much needed draft captial (sox also have nothing from international players after the draconian smackdown earlier this year). They need an infusion of young talent.
"Can't hit" based on what? (Or maybe more to the point, where are you setting the bar? Does "can't hit" mean Adam Everett, or Khalil Greene?)
Add what to the bullpen, exactly? It's not as though there's a gaping hole yet to be filled.
Kimbrel
Thornburg
Smith (mid-season)
Kelly
Barnes
Ross
Abad
Hembree
Scott
Workman
odd man out from the rotation
With the quality in the rotation, barring catastrophic injuries, they are set up pretty well to succeed with what they have right now.
It's pretty reasonable to believe Dombrowski when he says he's satisfied with the talent he has and is entirely comfortable going into spring training with exactly this roster. Other than signing a couple more veterans to minor league deals with invitations to spring training, the off-season is pretty much over.
Chatham? Their second round pick last year that was considered a top 2-3 SS in the entire draft and was discovered to have a broken thumb immediately after they took him? Then played a tiny sample size of 35 games, during which his OPS in the NYPL was .748? That guy? Yeah, that's not depressing. Go back to Soxprospects and read the write up. There's nothing wrong with that being your #8 guy.
Before the trades, the Red Sox were probably a top 5 system reliant heavily on their top 5 prospects. After Groome/Kopech, it got thin very fast. That's not to say there weren't interesting prospects or there wasn't hope for major league value behind that group, but it was mostly high floor low-ish ceiling guys (Travis is the best of that bunch with a chance for a couple all star level ceilings during his peak not being out of reach) who were close to ready and lotto tickets. Chatham is a lotto ticket, but a fun one to dream on. You can lump Dalbac and probably Ockimey into that group too.
Other than that, it's a lot of post-prospects and kids who have been very disappointing relative to expectations. Maybe a couple turn it around, but Dombrowski did a number on the overall quality of the farm. Not that I disagree with your point about Chatham with regard to him being disappointing. It just prompted me to post a more general thought about the farm system since the Moncada trade.
Yes, but those stacked farm systems tend to either not last or to wash out. Given the amount of players that graduated and the quality obtained via trade, I don't think there's a whole lot to be depressed about on the farm. You can't stay top 5 forever and have your big league team compete.
It's not going to be a top systems again for some years, but it's also not completely barren and the big league club doesn't have a lot of needs forthcoming, short of injury issues.
I'm also not sure I use the term lotto ticket the same as you do, but I don't view Chatham as what I would call a lotto ticket. I think of lotto tickets as teenagers in rookie ball, not 21 year olds heading into their first full season after being a 2nd round pick. YMMV.
I;m not looking to rehash the DD trade baron debate again, but I think of the guys he's moved, only four would still be top 10 in this system - Moncada, Kopech, Espinoza and Margot. The rest was truly lotto tickets and filler.
It's not going to be a top systems again for some years, but it's also not completely barren and the big league club doesn't have a lot of needs forthcoming, short of injury issues.
I'm also not sure I use the term lotto ticket the same as you do, but I don't view Chatham as what I would call a lotto ticket. I think of lotto tickets as teenagers in rookie ball, not 21 year olds heading into their first full season after being a 2nd round pick. YMMV.
I;m not looking to rehash the DD trade baron debate again, but I think of the guys he's moved, only four would still be top 10 in this system - Moncada, Kopech, Espinoza and Margot. The rest was truly lotto tickets and filler.
The guy who is about to be 22 (meaning old for class) who struggled in low A despite being old for the league? Who is 6'4 and unlikely to stick at SS was absolutely not one of the top 2-3. He was picked 5th and was an overdraft. He was considered an outside the top 100 guy. An overdraft to save some money for Groome.
I came squarely down on the side that thought that was a ridiculous assertion. Regardless, the system was extremely deep going into last winter and is extremely thin now. That's definitely worth being depressed about when looking at just the farm. That the major league roster is as stacked with young talent as it is and has virtually no holes should do plenty to take the edge off for even the most ardent prospect lover, though. I mean, what's the point of obsessing over the farm if you can't take some time to enjoy the fruits of that labor when those prospects start to turn into major league regulars and stars?
As for how many would still be in the top ten? That's pure speculation, but I think I mostly agree. That said, that would mean they'd be looking at something like 6 or maybe 7 (depending on how various publications come down on Travis) top 100 prospects this spring, instead of 2 or 3, so "only four" is actually a significant difference.
And despite all of that, I can certainly see a world where next spring we are looking at the Sox having 6 top 100 guys again, without even considering the 2017 draft. Chatham, Dalbac and Ockimey could all be drawing that kind of attention after another season, and you can always hope for surprise leaps like players like Shawaryn, or Cosart. Sam Travis should also be there unless he graduates before then. So it's not an entirely bleak outlook.
It wouldn't shock me to see the system looking like it did in 2013 where they had the numbers 8, 31, 40, 49 and 91 prospects on BA's list. Swihart was also in the system, but not yet cracking those lists.
Evaluating our system right now is tricky, but it's always a useful exercise to look at a list of Players Under 25, not to replace but to complement the prospect lists. Which would look something like:
Betts
Bogaerts
Rodriguez
Benintendi
Devers
Groome
Travis
Dalbec
Hernandez
Owens
Etc., etc. I'm sure people could improve on the sequencing.
The point, that I know people understand, is that we've "lost" at least as much value to promotions as we have to trades.
Betts
Bogaerts
Rodriguez
Benintendi
Devers
Groome
Travis
Dalbec
Hernandez
Owens
Etc., etc. I'm sure people could improve on the sequencing.
The point, that I know people understand, is that we've "lost" at least as much value to promotions as we have to trades.