a700hitter
-
Posts
70,231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by a700hitter
-
Is that a porn website? We could have trademark infringement by Hitch.
-
And I pointed out why your explanation was incorrect too.
-
Defend your own completely erroneous post first. Or just own that it was wrong.
-
Vasquez is the superior defender. He showed solid offensive performance and yes more years. Miami is in a full rebuild mode. More controllable years is a good thing. Plus, Reamilto wants out. Maybe sweeten the pot with an A ball prospect.
-
None at all. LOL!
-
I clicked for confirmation. It was easier than going to an independent site. -
Yet, they managed to sign some smaller deals that were completely unmovable— Pablo (ate the whole thing), Rusney (eating the whole thing with no chance of unloading), Craig (ate the whole thing even though it wasn’t our signing). Who would get more interest from among Hanley, Porcello and Price? That is a tough one. Porcello is coming off a horrendous season and 2 horrendous seasons sandwiching a Cy Young season. Hanley had a bad season and had surgery. Price is coming off an injury plagued season. I would say that Porcello would get more interest as of today because he is healthy, his contract is smaller than Price’s and only 3 years are left on it. I didn’t bring up Porcello’s name as an example of an immovable contract, but if you added his contract to the unmovable and other underperforming contracts and it would have paid for both Scherzer and Lester. That would have been the smarter money. Finally, is it your opinion that Price’s contract is unmovable?
-
What about Vasquez for Reamulto straight up?
-
But you clicked on it to make sure... right?
-
DD and JH are big boys. They know how to take care of their money. Smaller so-called value contracts like Pablo’s, Hanley’s, Rusney’s and Porcello’s returned very little for about $350 million which could have paid for Scherzer and Lester. Big contracts are not necessarily bad and smaller ones can be terrible.
-
Never advocated for a 7/$210 million contract. Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me how you think I should have answered. It was a false binary choice presented by Kimmi that was meant to divert the discussion. That is why I answered the way I did. There are other avenues than a 7 year $210 million contract — which JD will not get. Every premise in your original post calling out people for advocating for a $210 million contract while criticizing the FO for bad contracts was completely erroneous. You should just own up to that.
-
There are other avenues than a 7/$210 million contract.
-
it is not an either or situation. That is why I didn’t answer it. It is a false choice. We need a bat, and DD will have to do what it takes to get one. If he doesn’t want to pay 7/$210 million, then go another route. If they think 7/$210 million is a good deal, we don’t know their finances. I trust that they will not be fools with their money. But again, status quo in a window period with a cliff outside of that window is an irrational strategy.
-
I don't think anyone here has advocated for a 7 year contract, certainly not anyone who is complaining about the contracts weighing us down. So, the premise of your post is not correct.
-
Hopefully, he is working the phone.
-
Not getting a big bat is not acceptable. Status quo in a window period is irrational.
-
Moon, thanks for the fake out. LOL!! I thought the headline was about JD.
-
Now that we are agreed upon with regard to strategy, we need to get DD to implement it. LOL!
-
it isn’t often that a Brooklyn-ite makes fun of someone’s accent. LOL!
-
It is a country made up of defeated loyalists to the crown, defeated French, draft dodgers and other assorted losers that can’t get American citizenship or access to our borders. edit: in the inevitable case that this will offend the humorless, I just want to go on record that I was kidding. I have nothing against Canada or Canadians despite their annoying accent.
-
Status quo in a window period is not a rational approach, even if it means a bad contract.
-
As I said, it is not impossible, but it is just an unrealistic hope.
-
LOL! And cliff believers would not be acting rationally if they would want to go with the status quo in 2018. I won’t put words in Moon’s mouth, but I think he is opposed to going with the status quo strategy.
-
They don’t have close to the same talent level. My post was in response to your post that it would not be unrealistic to believe that Bogey will have a better year than Machado. The chances of that happening are so remote as to render it unrealistic.
-
I agree. Status quo is irrational when we are facing an impending cliff. If you have a window, you do your best to win during the window. JD would only cost money.
