Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,192

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 User Name

  1. User Name
    Yet it wasn't going to be a problem with a short 3B overweight by 100 pounds? That contract made sense? Be consistent.
  2. User Name
    I don't think that's a logical assesment. Faster development doesn't mean better ceiling. Also, Moncada plays at a MIF position. All things being equal, Moncada would be more valuable because of position.
  3. User Name
    I don't think you're giving enough importance to what being 100 pounds overweight can do to an athlete, even if he's not yet 30 years old. "Even with his large size" is just a terrible beginning to any sentence trying to defend the Sandoval signing. I liked Ben, but this was a terrible signing right off the bat. Anyone could see it. Decline, problems with body type, questions about his work ethic, the whole shebang. Humans make mistakes. Ben was not some sort of deity impervious to errors. Signing Sandoval was a dumb idea right off the bat, considering he already had a better overall 3B and needs in the rotation.
  4. User Name
    The Corvette is elite. The Fiesta is above-average and declining. With the Corvette, you get what you pay for. With this Fiesta, you don't.
  5. User Name
    Just now you realize this?
  6. User Name
    Pedroia is not 100 pounds overweight, and he's not in any way, shape or for relevant to this discussion. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You are defending what can't be defended. It would make a modicum of sense if they hadn't signed a better hitter and athlete to move out of position. I know you love being a contrarian but come on.
  7. User Name
    That's again comparing a Corvette to a Ford Fiesta.
  8. User Name
    So a clear regression trend is no reason to expect a significant drop-off in production? Then what is?
  9. User Name
    I like you.
  10. User Name
    This is correct, and it's not rocket science.
  11. User Name
    Don't forget the horrible platoon splits too (.837 OPS vs righties, .673 OPS vs lefties). It's Carl Crawford all over again, paying superstar money for a guy who's deeply flawed offensively.
  12. User Name
    You literally just made that up Dojji. Mechanics are the defining factor at play when talking about pitcher wear and tear. A 6'5 guy throwing with an inverted W is literally 3x more likely to go under the knife for TJS than a 5'10 guy with a clean motion. And there are studies (Hell, Kimmi posted two of them in this very same thread!) that there is also no correlation between size and pitcher durability.
  13. User Name
    You mean the fact that he's incredibly fat, had three straight years of declining performance, and had a terrible first half of 2014 weren't clear signs that it was a very real possibility that he may start sucking very soon? May be a neon sign at AT&T park may have been a better warning?
  14. User Name
    What you're implying is fallacious. While signing pitchers over 30 usually spells disaster in the back end of the contract, the signing team usually gets at least a couple of elite/very good seasons in the front end of the contract. The fact is (and this is fact) Price has sustained elite performance over the better part of a decade, while Pablo had declined statistically for three years running and had his work ethic called into question. You are trying to compare paying Corvette money for a Corvette, and paying Corvette money for a Ford Fiesta. It's faulty logic.
  15. User Name
    As a standalone move, yes. Doing so while also signing a superior 3B then moving him to the OF is not, by any objective measure.
  16. User Name
    You're completely disregarding the risk/reward aspect of economics. It is not, has not been, and will not be, a zero-sum game.
  17. User Name
    First off, it wasn't that long ago when you were spouting the exact same point I'm trying to make here. Be consistent. Second, are you serious? You seem to forget that the real problem here is that these are thoroughly guaranteed contracts. That's the main problem with baseball economics and why I think the bubble will burst eventually in some shape or form. Agreed on the rookie points though.
  18. User Name
    Increasing revenue does not take away from the idiocy of the current MLB salary bubble. It will burst eventually.
  19. User Name
    The explanation from scouts is that you can coach command and movement, but not velocity.
  20. User Name
    Buch's contract is an overpay, Price's contract is an overpay. In general, most players are overpaid relative to their value. It's the nature of the beast. Both moves are defensible though. Buch put up a 3.2 WAR last season in half a season. With the current going rate for a win, that's significant value Buch can add. If he could time his injury timetable better though, that would be great.
  21. User Name
    I would agree if they had ONE of Hanley/Sandoval, not both. Also, you watch a lot of baseball, but you're conveniently ignoring the long history of very overweight guys and sudden decline. You are ignoring all of the red flags (and there are plenty of them) in order to defend your position. That's not very objective.
  22. User Name
    But the Jays got Donaldson for peanuts, and the main reason Hanley and his much better offensive track record got that nasty shoulder injury was unfamiliarity with the OF.
  23. User Name
    Hanley had not played an inning of OF in his MLB career. They signed a 3B and a SS/3B.
  24. User Name
    The rationale was terrible. You could make a case for it if they had one of Hanley/Panda, but not both.
  25. User Name
    But he wasn't the 3B available. That's the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...