he gone.

A) Haniger is arb eligible in 2020, FA by 2023 But more so B) I'm not sure I agree with that. We have a huge hole at 3b as we have had for a decade now. Cano hasn't really had much of a drop off which is quite amazing for his age. Now I don't expect that to continue through the remainder of his contract, however you can conceivably get 2 years of him at 3B which would be a nice filler while you wait for a Burger, Arenado, Madrigal (whether that mean a shift for Anderson, Moncada, etc. to 3b). After those two years you move him to a rotation between 3B, 2B, 1B, DH, LF and he becomes a Ben Zobrist type. I went through my projections for him offensively on my first post in the thread, but I think we could always use a guy like Cano. Just my two cents though. I think if you can get a Haniger by paying the whole salary you may want to explore it. Not saying it's worth the risk at this point in our rebuild, but I also think you do explore it and see if you can make the team better.

Per Rotoworld: -- notice the last sentence -- Mets looking into Cano as a means to get Edwin Diaz. I again standby my statement that you can get Haniger if you take on the Cano Contract. It's math for the Mariners -- to free up that money is worth A LOT to that team. Imagine if we had that contract on our books and were in the same situation as the Mariners -- stuck in no mans land and with limited payroll flexibility.. I think we'd attach a Reynaldo Lopez or a Moncada to a trade as well (we don't really have comparable assets) Andy Martino of SNY.tv reports that the Mets are being "aggressive" in trade talks regarding the Mariners' Robinson Cano. The idea is that the Mets could perhaps take advantage of the Mariners' pursuit to move Cano and get the club to improve their offer in order to make it happen. Seattle's options could be limited, as Cano has a full no-trade clause. But the thought is that he could be willing to make a return to New York, either with the Mets or the Yankees. Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reported on Monday that there was talk of a Cano-for-Ellsbury swap of bad contracts, but they didn't lead anywhere. It's possible it could be revisited down the road. As for the Mets, Martino speculates that the club could be able to swap a bad contract like Jay Bruce while trying to get the Mariners to include Edwin Diaz in the deal. Cano, 36, is still owed $120 million over the next five seasons. It's a complicated scenario, especially after a year where he served a PED suspension, but the Mets are considering all avenues to improve.

it wouldn't be a bad contract if he was 32, it just so happens he's coming off of 36 year old season with PED's. his numbers have had almost no decline which is super super impressive. Do I think they do it with Haniger included? Probably not, but if you throw in someone with some upside they may. Call it Yolmer or Avi, etc. Seattle's GM has been very aggressive thus far and I think he's the type of guy that wouldn't mind having $50mm+ of payroll open up next year so he can make a mark of his own and erase the contracts signed by the preivous GM. Here's a question... would you do something like Basabe for Cano (full contract) and Haniger. Or something like Rutherford for Cano and ($22mm per year) Haniger To answer your question of why sign anybody ... it's a calculated decision, it just so happens the Seattles and Chicago's of the world have to pay more (years) to get their guy all else equal since we don't have a history of winning. Then once one of those contracts doesn't go well then it sinks the ship for a while. I still standby that you can get Diaz or Haniger off the Mariners.

Not assuming they would - but in my defense, that Cano contract is close to untouchable. They're going to have to eat half of it ($60mm) to get any type of interest and maybe some fringe prospect tied to it. Aka, they may be able to get a Carson Fulmer or a Mederios or somebody. To have a team step in and take $120mm/$24mm per year off the books in a market like Seattle would be huge. As such, I'd think someone like Haniger "could" be on the table. In the NBA you see this all the time, I think you'll start seeing it more in the MLB. Tying good assets to take the bad assets away. Just as reference, with taking away Cano, after 2019 they'd have $51mm off the books between Cano and King Felix. I just think it really helps them with a quick/nimble turnaround - something it seems their GM would like based on his aggressive trade nature thus far.

I'm a big proponent of finding a few year solution at 3B, something the Sox have really struggled with for almost 20 years now. Is that Moncada? Anderson? even maybe Madrigal? Jake Burger? Machado? Arenado? Who knows.. but I would definitely explore a Cano trade. If you look at Cano's stats both offensively and defensively he has been really consistent.. even when returning from the suspension (https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/canoro01.shtml) . With 5 years left on his contract and $120mm -- that's an awful pill to swallow, but the Mariners are desperate and ridding his contract would enable them to have flexibility moving forward. Lets say: Year 1&2: .285 BA, 20HR, 85RBI, plays exclusively 3B Years 3&4 . 260BA, 15HR, 60RBI, plays 3B, 1B, DH, 2B in a rotation for 130 games Year 5: .240BA, 5HR, 40RBI, plays basically backup DH and bench spot for occasional starts -- plays 60 games Would you take that on at $24mm a year, knowing that the Sox are cheap and that would impact future spending during a hopeful WS run in years 3-5? The kicker -- by taking on the whole contract you get Mitch Haniger included for free. Or Edwin Diaz. Haniger isn't even arb eligible until 2020, not a FA until 2023. You stick him RF (obviously no Harper) and Cano at 3B. You buy out Haniger's arb years for an initial higher salary, but lower AAV later in his contract to balance out Cano's cost. For $30mm you get Cano and Haniger instead of just Harper or Machado? Lineup: 1b Abreu, 2b moncada, ss Anderson, 3b cano, lf eloy jimenez, cf ? rf haniger I actually don't mind the idea if you could guarantee that Cano puts up that production.

True, but if Machado is the guy they sign they're going to have more of a log jam then they'd like between Franco, Kingery, Crawford. I'm not sure any of those guys are actually going to pan out, all have had their issues. Franco - 26, although he doesn't strike out much he also doesn't walk/get on base much and defense is average at best. Kingery - 25, has potential, good AAA numbers, still young. Was highly touted. First pro season was uninspiring. Crawford - 23, really hasn't done much or lived up to any of the 1st round status. doesn't steal bases, doesn't defend great, no power... etc. ACtualy after looking up just their stats, I am disappointed more than I thought I'd be. I guess I'd take Franco and Santana in a situation. stick FRanco at 3b and Santana in LF/Dh/3b/1b rotation. Not sure it makes us much better though..

Surprised the overall positivity on the Santana idea.. I posted that on Friday and hadn't checked back until now. Was expecting to get roasted for it. Clarifying my overall stance - I just don't see the Sox getting Machado or Harper. Now, overall I'm a pessimistic person - but I Just have seen this story too many times and usually we're "in the running" but don't get the guy. also, as much as I'd absolutely love a signing of either guy, I'm also realistic to see how signing a guy like that might really zap payroll flexibility in the future. So if Eloy does well.. cease... moncada starts plalyign to his potential, etc. I can see where a mega-contract starts being an "excuse" of why we cant sign someone. I mean, look at the Cubs .... may or may not be true, but they're even using payroll as an excuse. So all that said, that's why I'd like to look at teams who are currently in that predicament and getting creative there. Baseball is different than other sports, but I wouldn't mind taking on the last two years of a bad contract if it means possibly having a mid level prospect tied to it as well. Others -- not advocating these, but just saying realistically we have a less than 1% chance going against the Yanks, Red Sox, Astros, etc. So although we may think the Indians window is closing - we really have no shot at the real prize. Thus I'd entertain all options in the short term (1-2 years) of bad contracts.

Just throwing some options out there -- and not sure you'd want to do this as it may help your direct competitor in the Phillies, but Carols Santana? The Phillies are looking to unload him. I know he's been a liability at 1B and we already have a DH. Maybe if we strike out on Machado we can just take on like half the contract though and stick him at 3rd base? Personally probably not a fit, but hey, just a forum discussion point. Think he has two years and like 40mm on his contract... maybe you can work out a deal where you get him and JP Crawford or a Scott Kingery. I doubt we sign either of Harper or Machado, so if the Phillies do, maybe they need a bit more payroll flexibility to add both. We take Santana and his whole contract - stick him at 3b/dh/1b rotation for the 2 years and then take on one of their prospect infielders and see what comes of it.

Would have been nice to get Amazon - think if I was Amazon I would have picked upwards of 5 sites. Why limit to just 3 HQ's? You're a ginormous company that's only going to grow if they stay the course. Put one on the east coast, one in the SE, one in TX or southwest, one in the NW (seattle) and then one in the Midwest.

hahaha. I did preface that plan saying I hate Addison, but strictly between the lines baseball? it does sadly make sense. You're getting two guys for free for taking on heyward. With those three guys in the fold you actually have a formidable team in the AL Central this year... like Minnesota Twins 2017 formidable. A team that has a chance w all going right to sneak into a WC and get blasted. I for one, wouldn't do it - I hated Chapman. I hated Osuna on the Astros. I just generally hate characters like that, but strictly between the lines it's a good baseball move.

I haven't done nearly enough research on this, and I'd like to caveat that I am doing this plan as semi-realistic. This is the footnote version with a full version maybe some weekend when I have time. a) I would explore bad contracts out there on teams close to the luxury tax or that are near the hump - but lack payroll flexibility. Who comes to mind off the top of my head? Rusney Castillo, Jayson Heyward, Dexter Fowler, Ian Desmond, Robinson Cano, Chris Davis .... last one is a very tough one to take on though. I feel like all the others on that list have something to add to a team. You could probably acquire Castillo for nothing and have half or more of his salary paid by the BoSox. Heyward - Addison Russell at 3B - and Happ in your OF for .... nothing? Now I hate Addison Russell and think you stay as far away from him as possible, but just throwing it out for thought. All of a sudden your lineup is rounded out pretty quickly. You have Heyward in RF, Happ in CF and Jimenez in LF. Addy at 3B, Anderson and Moncada up the middle and Abreu at 1b. All you did was take on a bad contract and a terrible human being. Dexter Fowler could be a nice add as a veteran presence. Cano is interesting at 3b? Again, just throwing out names and would explore this angle. You can maybe pick up a decent ball player and/or add a prospect. We have the money, so we should look into it. b) sign a pitcher. I don't care how many arms you think you have, you never have enough. Giolito, Kopech, Hansen, etc. etc. theres always going to be pitchers who you think slot in and then don't. Cease may throw out his arm this year. So could Lopez or almost anybody. I can't take watching Covey out there again. I personally like Ryu versus the others due to his relative cost, but I'd explore thorugh trade and FA to bring in 2-3 arms. c) Sign a few veterans. Last year we didn't do this. We wanted a bare bones roster to see what we had coming up. Well... it worked out how I thought. it's a bunch of AAAA players. I think you sign a McCutchen or an Adam Jones or the likes. I don't care about the roster crunch. I'd rather have guys who have done it right for 10 years show these guys the ropes a bit. that's my basic plan. more detailed one to come.

I recently found the Slam forum on this message board and I might have to say I enjoy it more than talks about the Sox for this reason... hah a) Abreu at $18mm is not a financial burden nor will it take away from the Sox signing anybody they want b) why go after Goldshmidt in any way? Yes he's good, but he's no spring chicken either. Why would you trade prospects for 1 year of a guy that would replace a guy who is still a productive player? c) Jose Abreu is continually unclutch?? One quick search into baseball reference and I show that he's hit .318 with RISP and has a .949 OPS with RISP. soo....... ??? d) Since coming to the MLB this was his first season with under 100 RBI's (mind you mostly on terrible teams w/ no protection). Had he not been injured he would have been very close to career numbers in RBI's, HR, etc. Yes his OPS and SLG were down this year, but I don't really think Jose Abreu is the problem. Pay him his $18mm this year. And then I would entertain him on a 2-3 year deal at like $10-12mm a year as your DH/1B after that.

Just look how the US rates in education in regards to other countries... Just because something has been a certain way for a while doesn't make it the best way. By the time you get to college ... which is an elective of its own, you should be able to have more control over your academics and areas of interest. We'll just agree to disagree -- because I am always going to be pretty anti-established practices of almost anything. Humans are all very different at our cores - how we learn, how we perceive ideas, etc. One kid may be a visual learner, another physical, verbal, etc. etc. I think it's foolish that we don't take advantage of that and think that every kid must take one science, one math, one English, one history course and THAT is what is determined to be a valued member of society because educational theories. I believe that there is A TON of room for improvement in our educational system and that it's actually really poorly run from top to bottom.

It also does not help that HR at most bigger companies is a joke. Everything is an algorithm and the application processes are choppy. It really just comes down to who do you know rather than are you qualified. I never thought I'd be a hippy dippy who'd consider home schooling my kids or doing some kind of alternative learning (and probably still wont) but the system we're in just cares about teaching to the test. Your whole life your taught to just be obedient and regurgitate a scan-tron test. At the end of the day you have a bunch of kids who have just memorized material without really questioning why or learning financial and life skills to excel in life. We should really be teaching our kids more computer science, more basic financial skills, more cooking/health oriented classes, more wood shop/auto/trades type classes.

I get where both you and Rabbit are coming from. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the point that Rabbit is trying to get across is that we train/teach kids in high school very little for the real world. Meaning you take some real basic courses, but no real life courses or financial courses in high school. So unless you have parents that guide you through, a lot of times you're some 17 year old child taking out a loan as big as house loan to pursue an education in _______ even though you really don't have a clue. Not that the government is forcing these loans, but they certainly aren't really advertising the overall financial burden associated with them. Not sure if that was Rabbits thought process, maybe just mine. I'd like to see the education system tweaked to give more real life experience and critical thinking leading up to high school graduation rather than regurgitation of facts in an book.

I feel like my arguments were pretty focused on my disdain of the current system - not taking shots at people's intelligence. That being said I will stand by my intelligence any day of the week. I stand by my argument that you don't need to spend $50-75k over your first two years of college taking courses the university deems important. Colleges date back 100's of years when there was no internet, digital books, podcasts, etc. I don't have to sit through Biology 101 in college to learn Biology 101 any longer. Chances are if you are not interested in Biology 101 you're not going to put the effort in our retain the information you learned anyways, which goes back to my point to let the students choose how they want to earn their credits.

I don't blame myself one bit for taking tennis. The real issue is why are universities wasting money on electives like tennis, bowling, etc. You have a hired staff to teach those. And then people wonder why college is so expensive. There's a wealth of information in the world and sitting and listening to some professor who's so engrained in academia is not my preferred way to do it. If I know my major is going to be finance/business oriented why waste 2 years taking Biology 101 and the sorts? Is it nice information to have? Yes. Does it challenge you to learn new things? Yes. Can I find those books at a library and endless information on the internet if I am interested? Yes. So why spend $50-75,000 on 2 years of something that doesn't apply to what you're going to do in your career. Another food for thought is if you are going to MAKE students take those type of courses why not let them choose entirely. I would have loved to study more exercise science courses about the human body, and health and science. I would have studied more about foods, culture, etc. I would have studied the histories of religions. I would have taken a bunch of psychology courses. I would have taken a bunch more economic courses. But instead you have a guidebook and you're told you must take one science course, one calculus course, one English course, etc. You're paying someone -- they're your employee, yet they tell you what you have to learn to be a good rounded student in THEIR opinion. So instead of getting hungry kids eager to learn about what they WANT to learn about you get me taking a tennis course and writing 10 page papers about british literature wanting to stab my eyeballs out. It's asinine and antiquated. College is for the birds in its current format.

Agree 100%. I see it in my field with professional designations. Everybody is out there taking useless tests to get extra letters after their name. They're not doing it to be a better professional or to become an expert -- it's all for $$. There has to be some weeding out process, but at some point the cost has to level out. College/masters/law school, etc. is like any other economic equation - People will continue to pursue those options as long as there is a ROI. You saw it with Law School last decade -- all these schools popped up promising some grand life style to kids. Colleges made their money, but way too many lawyers out there. No jobs. It has balanced itself out somewhat over the next decade, but for every employed lawyer out there, there is another one that is underemployed. I'd say for the first time ever college is being viewed almost as a negative by Millennials. The value proposition is out of whack. I have so many friends that choose to have a kid or two less because of school debt... that's f***ed up. I am one of those. I married into a law degree and poof goes my savings of a decade. I told her no more than 2 kids because of that. When you have a whole generation that went through that along with living through some baby boomer crashes and likely another crash coming soon ... me just thinks that 20 years from between all of that and technology that college may not be only viewed different, but may be completely different experience. The problem is that college is so engrained in our society it's hard to move away from. We shall see.

I'm in Surety - which is more or less a financial product under an Insurance umbrella. More or less my job is credit analysis.

What will a college education be WORTH in 18-25 years from now? That's the question. I think the idea of college "as is" is antiquated. For kids it's more or less "camp" to go off and learn and live on your own. To grow socially, to build that network. It also comes with continuing education, but like with most education it's really more or less a "test" of proving to employers you can be compliant and follow direction properly. The higher the GPA, the better the institution the more likely it is that you have the ability to work hard and be compliant to your boss/company. Because let's be honest, I remember taking "Tennis" class, I remember taking Biology, and theology, and a bunch of other completely worthless (and expensive) classes that have zero to do with my degree in Finance and Insurance. At that my major in insurance, although specific, STILL didn't translate to my job at an insurance company. I had more basic building blocks than my peers, however commercial insurance isn't rocket science and within a year we're all the same field of play. I would assume most of us out there applied less than 5-10% of what we learned in college to our actual jobs. It's what we learned about OURSELVES during that time away from home that shaped us into the worker you are today. At the end of the day college is one expensive summer camp teaching life skills and something that is imposed by society as a way to say someone is qualified for a job. This is unlike when my parents (I'm 31) went to college. Then it was a true way to separate yourself from the pack. Still was a societal norm imposed, but there were less people who went. Now, it's college AND a masters. What's next college, masters, volunteering and PHD? My generation (i think) is fed up with debt, student loans, etc. and i think that will be passed down to the next generation. Also technology is rapidly evolving. I'm not so sure college in 2040 looks like it does now. Who knows though - these institutions have been around forever, but with the way they're spending there's going to have to be some shutdowns, some consolidation, and some change of the cost of an education because it can't continue on the trajectory it is now.

He's trying to make the roster in any way possible, so i respect that.. however he's not going to be worth anything that resembles a winnable game. If he can do 15-30 innings of complete mop up duty that may save us a roster spot or give us the ability to look at an additional player. It's meh to me though. Take it or leave it. Don't think he's part of any future.

Eovaldi would have interested me if he was never traded from the Rays this year. Same guy, same arm, same everything and you could've signed him for 3 years and $30mm. Now? I fear on postseason alone he's going to go for 4 years and $56mm. I'd still kick the tires on him though. Can never have too much pitching. I'd max out at 4 years and $48mm.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump can spin the tariffs as rah rah all he wants, but I see the results directly across the board when reviewing financials. It can only be passed along to consumers so much - it's killing margins. Economists disagree and say it's not that tariffs won't and don't effect the US economy that much, but I disagree. I was in an Uber the other day and my driver said he thought we're nearing the end of the bull run... if that's not a sign I'm not sure what is. Since we're on SoxTalk -- to compare it to baseball ---- I'd say the Economy/bull run just wrapped up the 7th inning stretch. We may have between 6-24 months of run left in this thing depending on many factors, but personally think when the clock strikes 2020 that somewhere in that year is where the bottom really falls out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar This is like the cliff notes version of the USD, but nevertheless the quickest kind to share in a forum like this. Kind of fun to read and think of how volatile our dollar has been. Just thinking that the credit card has only been around for like 50 years is another eye opener. It's so engrained in our everyday lives that it's hard to remember its not even a generation old. It's caused such a massive change in our everyday spending habits and is just a blip on the radar of money/finance. Hard to predict its effect 10, 30, 75 years from now. What will the history of the credit card be? money, greed, fiat, etc. are all ever evolving and imperfect. Fun stuff. That's where I get the enjoyment out of a new idea like bitcoin, crypto, blockchain, etc. it's all very foreign and new right now and ultimately (and likely) that its another flash in the pan in the history of currencies and money, but interesting nevertheless.

I'm not so sure the "illegal" aspect is as true anymore. But I mean, if this is your opinion I'm sure others share it. Same with energy. I personally don't believe those roadblocks, but as long as people do bitcoin will struggle to have true use case. My biggest personal issue with it is not buying it - that's super easy to do. CashApp is a perfect example. Super simple. Gemini, Coinbase, etc. The hard part is getting it off the exchanges. Buying a wallet. Setting up a wallet. Maintaining your wallet keys. Accessing it easily, carrying it around, putting it on your phone. Utilizing the funds on your wallet. It scared the shit out of me and still does every time I open my wallet up. That's not a good trait to have when dealing with "money". On a scale of 1 - 100 I think we're at basically a 5-10 of it's true power. 100% utility will never be accomplished, but if it can get to 30-50% of it's true functionality that it set out to be I think the price associated with it will have been a great investment. The moment where a person thinks in terms of I own 3 bitcoin and can buy a car with that instead of I own 3 bitcoin, I can exchange that for $20,000 USD - that's when it will be something. Until that point, it's just a volatile, expensive commodity/toy/art/currency/experiment.