Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

If we are so hell-bent on keeping Hicks until 2026, can we find a reason to put him on the IL?

You probably don't have to wait too long if the rumors are true. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

If we are so hell-bent on keeping Hicks until 2026, can we find a reason to put him on the IL?

They should make a new rule: anyone who breaks a batter's foot or toe with a dumb pitch should automatically have to spend the same amount of time on the IL.

Posted
12 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

You probably don't have to wait too long if the rumors are true. 

"The waiting is the hardest part..."

Posted
17 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Its a mystery how a flame thrower can be so bad.

If you don't know where it's going, a lot of times it will either be well out of the zone or put right on a tee for a hitter. 

Posted

Hicks has also been noted as being the first guy to leave the clubhouse after a game. Get this guy out of here. There's at least a glimmer of hope with Masa and players like him.

Posted
1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Hicks has also been noted as being the first guy to leave the clubhouse after a game. Get this guy out of here. There's at least a glimmer of hope with Masa and players like him.

Hicks is a men;ace to Sox pitching this season.  I see nothing wrong with his leaving the clubhouse. The problem is when he returns to the clubhouse.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Hicks is a men;ace to Sox pitching this season.  I see nothing wrong with his leaving the clubhouse. The problem is when he returns to the clubhouse.  

No Hicks Allowed

Posted
1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

No Hicks Allowed

I'm reminded of Daniel Bard, a very different kind of pitcher who started out well with the Sox and by his 5th season had a bad case of the yips.  He dropped out of MLB from 2014 to 2019, 6 straight seasons.  Then he returned to the Rockies in 2020 and by 2022 had an ERA of 1.79 and 34 saves at age 36/37. After the 2022 season his contract for 2 years, 2023 and 2024, was $19M, but he retired after 2023. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

I'm reminded of Daniel Bard, a very different kind of pitcher who started out well with the Sox and by his 5th season had a bad case of the yips.  He dropped out of MLB from 2014 to 2019, 6 straight seasons.  Then he returned to the Rockies in 2020 and by 2022 had an ERA of 1.79 and 34 saves at age 36/37. After the 2022 season his contract for 2 years, 2023 and 2024, was $19M, but he retired after 2023. 

If only we got a Hicks GS in TOR this year! 🤩

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201206030.shtml

Posted

I don't see a major roster crunch, this winter, despite all the 60 Day IL players being added back, and a couple or three Rule 5's. but Hicks seems to be a hopeless case.

We already have some players that most of us wish or are close to wishing were not on the 40.

Hicks and Yoshida are hard to unload due to salary.

Lowe might get $10M via arb, so who knows?

I Campbell & Grissom may be nontendered or DFA'd/traded.

Sogard, Eaton & Ali Sanchez could easily be gone.

Houck will need to be on the 40, until opening day, when we can place him on the 60 Day until 2027. (Someone suggested we nontender him, but that is extreme, to me.)

Winckowski should stay, IMO. He was pretty good a couple years ago.

Casas should stay. It seems obvious to me. He has a career .800 OPS.

Criswell, Murphy, Kelly, Guerrero will stay, IMO.

DHam will stay, IMO.

 

Posted
20 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

why these idiots took him in the Devers trade. i get they were ready to dump Devers and his salary but iin return, they took on this loser and his stupid salary. Hicks would have been DFA'd already if he weren't making $12.5M/ year. the entire trade was just f***ing stupid.

I believe not taking Hicks would have forced the Giants to not take the entire salary dump. I'm guessing a reduction of 25 mil.

Posted
17 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I believe not taking Hicks would have forced the Giants to not take the entire salary dump. I'm guessing a reduction of 25 mil.

I think I read somewhere that SFG did not demand we take Hicks, but maybe that also meant we wouldn't get Harrisson or Tibbs, either.

Posted
11 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I think I read somewhere that SFG did not demand we take Hicks, but maybe that also meant we wouldn't get Harrisson or Tibbs, either.

Sox could have just eaten some salary from Devers's contract instead of taking the roster space. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Sox could have just eaten some salary from Devers's contract instead of taking the roster space. 

True, but wouldn't DFA'ing Hicks essentially be doing the same thing?

Posted
5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

True, but wouldn't DFA'ing Hicks essentially be doing the same thing?

Sure, but the fanbase wouldn't have been harmed by seeing Hicks in the uniform. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Sox could have just eaten some salary from Devers's contract instead of taking the roster space. 

eaton was eaten saldad with ethan salas

Posted
3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Sure, but the fanbase wouldn't have been harmed by seeing Hicks in the uniform. 

Emotionally harming the fan base should require a large monetary punishment. I know that I've been psychologically damaged viewing him in a Sox uniform. I want repairations.

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...