Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
Looks like CBS projects him to get more money than E-Rod. Not sure how their order works.

 

I was all for signing ERod two years ago, but i wouldn’t do a five year deal now.

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
That CBS ranking also had Gray at 12, but Kevin Kiermaier at 11?!?!?

 

It’s kind of like the farm rankings in that there are all kinds of differing opinions, and rankings out there.

Posted
Looks like CBS projects him to get more money than E-Rod. Not sure how their order works.

 

It's a very ridiculous order once you do a deep dive into it.

Posted
It's a very ridiculous order once you do a deep dive into it.

 

From the author of the CBS ranking:

@r_j_anderson

New Orioles right-hander Shintaro Fujinami seems like a good candidate to throw fewer fastballs

 

Fujinami actually threw more fastballs with the O's.

Posted

How many teams have a number 1 better thanMonty? 8-14 maybe? Out of the ones that do, how many have a number two better than Monty?

 

I don’t get the low #2 to high #3 designation.

 

Are there really 45-75 pitchers better than Monty?

Posted
How many teams have a number 1 better thanMonty? 8-14 maybe? Out of the ones that do, how many have a number two better than Monty?

 

I don’t get the low #2 to high #3 designation.

 

Are there really 45-75 pitchers better than Monty?

 

Of course not. Just stick with the fWAR rankings.

Posted
I think the only signing that could be called a " Big splash " would be the You Tube sensation, Yamamoto. Possibly Snell. Montgomery would be a nice addition, but definitely not something to get all excited over.
Posted
How many teams have a number 1 better thanMonty? 8-14 maybe? Out of the ones that do, how many have a number two better than Monty?

 

I don’t get the low #2 to high #3 designation.

 

Are there really 45-75 pitchers better than Monty?

 

There doesn't need to be 60 pitchers better than Montgomery for him to be a #3. There isn't equal division of starters among all teams.

Posted
How many teams have a number 1 better thanMonty? 8-14 maybe? Out of the ones that do, how many have a number two better than Monty?

 

I don’t get the low #2 to high #3 designation.

 

Are there really 45-75 pitchers better than Monty?

 

I got what McAdams was talking about between being a 2, or a 3. He’s a tweener.Not goood enough to be a 2, but better than being a 3.

Posted
I got what McAdams was talking about between being a 2, or a 3. He’s a tweener.Not goood enough to be a 2, but better than being a 3.

 

If you were a true sports radio nerd, you'd know how much putting the S in his name really pisses him off.

Posted
There doesn't need to be 60 pitchers better than Montgomery for him to be a #3. There isn't equal division of starters among all teams.

 

He has averaged 3.4 fWAR the last 3 seasons. Average is 2.0, so a #3 would be about 2.0.

 

He's clearly been a solid #2.

Posted
Of course not. Just stick with the fWAR rankings.

 

So, when someone says he’s a low 2 or high 3, they say that knowing just 15-25 pitchers might be better.

 

The meaning they assign to those statements don’t make sense to me.

 

Maybe they mean he’s a 2-3 on a pennant winning team.

Posted
So, when someone says he’s a low 2 or high 3, they say that knowing just 15-25 pitchers might be better.

 

The meaning they assign to those statements don’t make sense to me.

 

Maybe they mean he’s a 2-3 on a pennant winning team.

 

Anyone who suggests he's not a solid #2 has no clue what they're talking about.

Posted
There doesn't need to be 60 pitchers better than Montgomery for him to be a #3. There isn't equal division of starters among all teams.

 

There doesn’t need to be, no, but Monty might be the number one SPer on over half the teams in MLB, so I can’t see how you can call him a number 3.

 

How many teams have 2 SPers better than Monty in their rotation?

 

There are some, but maybe less than 5, right?

 

I could see wording it like this, “he should be the number 2 or 3 on a championship team.@

Posted
Anyone who suggests he's not a solid #2 has no clue what they're talking about.

 

I’d say he’s a top #2 to mid or lower #1, but I guess many don’t see it like that.

Posted (edited)
Anyone who suggests he's not a solid #2 has no clue what they're talking about.

 

Imagine someone not agreeing with someone on here, and of course it’s the other person that’s wrong. I’ll take Sean McAdam’s opinion on this. I know you can’t be trying to convince me you’re right, so it must be everyone is trying to convince yourselves, because it’s been nonstop since i mentioned Monty, W-L record, and journeyman in the same post. Like I always say there are all kinds of rankings, and opinions out there on everything, and I like to hear them all. I guess some just don’t. Oh well to each its own. Either way it doesn’t change anything in the big scheme of things.

Edited by Old Red
Posted
He has averaged 3.4 fWAR the last 3 seasons. Average is 2.0, so a #3 would be about 2.0.

 

He's clearly been a solid #2.

 

If he's your 2, it's fine. If he's your 3, you have a very good rotation and that's what the best teams should strive for.

Posted
So, when someone says he’s a low 2 or high 3, they say that knowing just 15-25 pitchers might be better.

 

The meaning they assign to those statements don’t make sense to me.

 

Maybe they mean he’s a 2-3 on a pennant winning team.

 

Bingo bango bongo

Posted
Imagine someone not agreeing with someone on here, and of course it’s the other person that’s wrong. I’ll take Sean McAdam’s opinion on this. I know you can’t be trying to convince me you’re right, so it must be everyone is trying to convince yourselves, because it’s been nonstop since i mentioned Monty, W-L record, and journeyman in the same post. Like I always say there are all kinds of rankings, and opinions out there on everything, and I like to hear them all. I guess some just don’t. Oh well to each its own. Either way it doesn’t change anything in the big scheme of things.

 

I think we all know that we are never going to convince you on anything. We are all just passing our time on here for whatever reason because it's vaguely enjoyable to us.

Posted
I think we all know that we are never going to convince you on anything. We are all just passing our time on here for whatever reason because it's vaguely enjoyable to us.

 

You make it sound like it’s only my opinion. Just like you not agreeing with one of the FA rankings today, and you said it was ridiculous just because it didn’t match what you think it should be. Just another example of a long list of someone not agreeing.

Posted
So, when someone says he’s a low 2 or high 3, they say that knowing just 15-25 pitchers might be better.

 

The meaning they assign to those statements don’t make sense to me.

 

Maybe they mean he’s a 2-3 on a pennant winning team.

 

Or not maybe: he was THE #2 on a World Series champion this month.

Posted
You make it sound like it’s only my opinion. Just like you not agreeing with one of the FA rankings today, and you said it was ridiculous just because it didn’t match what you think it should be. Just another example of a long list of someone not agreeing.

 

And you post in caps: it’s a STRETCH, so what’s the difference?

Posted
Or not maybe: he was THE #2 on a World Series champion this month.

 

He’d have been the number one on the Royals champ team.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...