Major League Ready

That's a very interesting option. He only played 47 games last year but was great. You have the fact he is 37 to consider. That's always scary. I think they are committed to Miranda at 3B which I absolutely support over signing a 37 y/o free agent. We need some long-term solutions. Let's see if Miranda can handle 3B. Play him at 1B? Not if they believe Kirilloff will be healthy. Even if they are not, I would prefer Arrez there over a 37 y/o. Now, if they trade Arrez, I can see it.

Makes a lot of sense if Martin can replace him but that has some risk. If someone offers a good return, I think they should take it but they have a couple years to make that move. On the other hand, Gordon and Martin together would be great together. They could have a couple big bat corner guys on the bench and still be well-covered for every position.

Gallo has a career OPS of 770 against LH pitching. Is there anyone available that's better against LH pitching. Can they play corner OF / CF and 1B. Keep in mind a 1 year contract is quite advantageous when you have prospects knocking at the door.

By the time Lee and Lewis are regulars the infield most likely is made up of Kirilloff / Lee / Lewis and Miranda.

We all know it's absolutely inevitability that teams in the bottom half of revenue will go through cycles. If you were to look, you would find that trading for prospects has been an enormous part of developing talent and building winning rosters. Prospects acquired by trade often contribute as much or more to WAR as drafted players. Cleveland's current team acquired Rosario, Gimenez, Straw, Naylor, Quantrill, Pilkington, Bieber, and Clause by trading established players and in doing so sustained their success rather than going through several years of poor teams. Some of those players were acquired by trading Kluber, Carrasco, and Clevinger who they also acquired as prospects. The premise this is not a pipeline baffles me. Sign me up regardless of what you want to call it.

What I meant is that that topic is very complex and we would need to do a great deal of research and gather a great deal of information to address it in an informed matter. What we can evaluate very accurately is the relative win records produced via the strategies these teams employ.

That argument is much more logical than we have too many LH bats. To be fair, we should consider other elements of his game as you have here. He takes good ABs and draws walks, great defense, positional flexibility, and upside. I don't really care for the signing but let's look a little deeper than he is LH, especially given his splits against LH pitching are quite good.

The "money ball" debate is interesting but that's another issue. At least I thought the issue was what moves promote the constructing of a good baseball team. We have had a few unpopular moves in the past few years. How did they pan out. Trading Donaldson last year had plenty of detractors. Some people were just against trading Donaldson in general. Some thought very little of Urshela. Perhaps the best example is Rosario. Some people are still complaining, and he has produced negative WAR since leaving and he is a mediocre defender. There were people here livid we would trade Escobar even though he was a free agent three months later. Obviously, we would not have Duran. Then, perhaps the most unpopular of all was Berrios. It's too early to conclude much but at the moment that's looking like a pretty good decision. Taylor Rodgers .... We may or may not get anything out of Paddack but we did not lose much either.

Including Kepler assumes they are keeping him, and their actions strongly suggest that's not happening. If Kirilloff is healthy, he is playing 1B. Wallner is unproven and starts in AAA. That leaves Larnach in Left, Gallo in Right, and Nick Gordon in his typical super utility role. How is this the atrocity it's being made out to be?

Should I conclude from your post you advocate making popular decisions instead of assembling a great team? Have you considered the possibility of other factors contributing to low attendance. If you were to look at how Cleveland and Oakland manage their rosters / acquisition, you will find very similar strategies. Those three teams have produced by far the most 90+ win seasons. Should they make decisions to please fans instead of following practices proven to be superior in building winning teams?

I saw this on MLB TV but I can't find an official announcement. It's might have been a rumor. All I could find was articles saying the Sox have made him available. Liam Hendricks Trade My apologies, I may have misinterpreted as I had this on in the background. We will have to see if this happens.

I was listening to an interview with someone from the ray's FO last week on MLB radio. They asked him why the Ray's have been able to be so successful despite the revenue disadvantage. He said "we are willing to make unpopular decisions".

Do you think the best offer he had was $6M and the twins offered him $11M. Have you seen the absurd contracts this off-season? Then, think role not hole. Back-up to CF is very important. Back-up to 1B which could be significant if Kirilloff's injury delays his return or limits his playing time. Replacement for Kepler and defensive replacement. It's also notable that his lifetime splits against LH pitching are pretty close to RH pitching. Plus, this is a two-time all-star. I have no idea if he rebounds but there is obviously huge upside. Let's say the season goes the way most folks here are predicting, and he returns to form. Huge return at the deadline. I scratched my head at first but it's not too hard to see why they did this deal, especially if they are certain they can move Kepler. Add whatever return they get for Kepler to the plus side of the column, and it won't be scraps, this signing is not that hard to understand.

Here are the differences in our positions conceptionally … You view free agency as a crucial element of success. The angst over this on this site made me wonder just how big a role free agency has played in construction playoff teams with below average revenue. I have studied almost every 90+ win team since 2000 and I know that free agents outside the parameters you insist are crucial have been far more important to winning than a big name free agent. I also have learned that the overall impact is rather modest. Therefore, my desire to sign big free agents is situational while you are extremely invested in signing them no matter the circumstances. There were only 4 players that interested me because I knew Correa and turner would get a deal that did not make sense for the twins. Vazquez and Narvaez and of course they signed Vazquez. Then, I thought there was a chance Bogaerts would go for a reason sum. I was wrong. The last one was Rodon. Supporting for Rodon would need to be validated as much as possible by medicals. I know the risks but I would opt for the risk associated with Rodon for 6 years over the virtually inevitable failure for the last several years of any SS for the ages 35-41. They got one of the 4 and one of those were redundant. No way would I give Bogearts $280M and when a player wants to go the Yankees, we are not getting them. So, the difference is I look at the entire situation and accept we were not getting Rodon away from the Yankees and I don’t want Bogaerts or Correa at those contracts and you get bent out of shape because we did not sign a big name regardless of the circumstances. BTW ... There was one significant contract in the entire AL central and the White Sox traded away Hendricks in order to afford that contract. Demonstrating once again the rarity of these contracts in below average revenue teams and the limitations of relying on free agency.

Like when they signed Correa last year or when the Angels signed Ohtani. It just does not matter with a core like Cleveland has put together. How did they do it? They traded away established players and got several ML ready prospects.

Do you think anyone on the planet believes signing bad players is a good plan? I am pretty sure you know this has absolutely no relevance to my point whatsoever. Would they have been signing these players if they had developed a core that could contend. They had to sign cheap players because they had needed several mediocre free agents just to fill out the roster. Do you really want to debate that free agency can play anything more than a supplemental role at an average cost of $10M/WAR? If you had actually stopped to consider what I said .... They would never even consider these players had they developed an adequate core.

So it's a bad strategy but let's do it anyway because we failed to develop? Free agency is not an alternative to acquiring young talent via draft or trade. Free agency even in high revenue markets is a supplement. Without development, especially in below average markets, there is absolutely no chance of success. This fanatical focus on fixing the problem by signing free agents is incredibly misguided.

I offered no opinion as to the relative merit of the deals. You stated there was no such thing as an $11M prove it deal. I simply thought these contracts may suggest otherwise. Like it or not. Some of these guys get paid because they once performed at a very high level and teams take a shot hoping they rebound.

I have been an advocate of adding a top tier free agent starter this year. I have done so because they have the financial flexibility now and going forward. However, try taking a look at how those 2nd tier free agents have produced. At one point I constructed a table of all the free agent pitchers. There have been a couple lately that have worked out. However, suggesting 2nd tier free agents are a good strategy requires you don't know the history of such free. I guess everyone has forgotten that we had to have Corbin and Bumgardner. Johnny Cueto had one great year and then sucked, etc. Avoiding actions with a high probability of failure is not a problem in any context.

He hit 199 in 2021 and produced 4.2 WAR. I would be very happy with a repeat.

When I first saw the announcement, I wondered if the calendar had rolled a head to April 1st. This deal makes no sense. There has to be other deals are already in the works. However, Verlander got a prove it deal after TJ for $25M and Bellinger just got $17.5M. Gallo once upon a time produced at a level that would pay $30M on a long deal, especially with his defense and flexibility. I think a big part of this is also Gallo's ability to back-fill CF.

Cavaco is my most hated move of this FO. Corbin Carroll was the best available according to multiple sources. He has 70 grade speed and a 65 hit tool. I had never saw him play but still couldn't believe they passed on him after ready the scouting reports. He is the #3 prospect in MLB and Cavaco is dead weight. What really adds insult to injury is that Carroll would be the perfect fit on this team because he could back-up Buxton with nearly the same defensive ability. Simply never understood Jay. I just figured the scouts must have seen something I could not. Stewart is understandable. That's the risk drafting a HS pitcher that high.

Dare to dream! I could believe in a different level of aggression because they would be at about $100M if they let Kepler go and paid Nola an AAV of $30M.

I hear ya but regression is more inevitable than injury. It will be Gray's age 34 season at the start of however many years he gets. Will he be effective when he loses a couple MPH off his fastball? He just does not impress me as a pitcher who will be effective at age 35+. Of course, I could be dead wrong. A lot depends on how much opportunity SWR and Varland get and of course how they look. Paddack plays into this as well. Where I know we agree is that we would both prefer to have Nola even if it meant filling out the rotation between Ryan / Ober / Paddack / Varland / SWR and Winder.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I am holding on to memories that are no longer accurate. I have no confidence Correa would have made a difference anytime soon. I would move Kepler and Maeda and then see how it goes this year with Wallner / Varland / SWR and perhaps Martin. Then, be ready to unload Gray at the trade deadline as well as Mahle if an extension is not in the cards because his health concerns or an inability to agree to terms. One of Polanco or Arraez also goes if a good return is available. That gives us all kinds of room to spend in 2024. Nola is a much better risk. Philly has a lot of big financial obligations, perhaps we can pry him away.