User Name
-
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
-
Do you even know what that means? And again, this is common sense issue. If you assign a monetary value to prospects and sum it to the amount of money in the Hamels vs. Shields debate, you'd come out with a calculation that tells you that Hamels would be about 50% more expensive than Shields, whose likelihood to fail is probably lower than Hamels because of his track record in the AL. It's not rocket science.
-
Again, common sense.
-
I don't even know what to respond to this. I'm not going to start a flame war over this, but just try to use some common sense.
-
No, you're missing the point. 80 million over 4 years is not an obscene amount of money for a pitcher, even though his age is against him in this pitching economy. Giving 110 million/5 PLUS prospects for a guy with a spottier health history, bad track record against the AL, and who also has age against him is way riskier. What's the part you're not understanding? Maybe I should clarify that it's not that I absolutely hate the idea of Hamels. He'd be a worthy addition, but not at Amaro's asking price.
-
He'd be making league minimum for the first three years of control, and Swihart alone isn't getting the Hamels deal done. Check your math again. Even if they (or even if it's Swihart alone) provides positive value during his arb years, it's almost impossible for the final calculation to shift in the Sox' favor. The X factor here, as you mentioned above, is prospect failure rate. But how can you really justify taking that chance?
-
Shields was never going to go for the length of time or amount of money Hamels is going for, plus no prospects, and an excellent track record in the AL. Even though he's older, Shields was more of a known quantity than Hamels. However, the FO disagreed with my assesment and let him sign elsewhere. Maybe age is a bigger concern for them on that specific deal, whereas prospects is the issue with Hamels. Contrary to your theory, all signs indicate towards money not being the issue with signing a pitcher, but rather age/length of contract. In any case, it seems to me that Lee would be the perfect fit for the Sox. It's a calculated risk on a one-year deal that wouldn't cost them top prospects. Even better, they can keep him for an extra year if he's healthy and performs well.
-
For a grand period of one year. On a year where the Red Sox already blew past the LT, to boot.
-
Same reason I want Lee. But replace "no loss of prospects" with "possibly clearing OF logjam"
-
So you don't think there are "many" teams that could absorb a 37.5 million price tag and have the need for a pitcher like Leee? I am shocked and appalled, shocked and appalled, i tell you!
-
Exactly. 31 is the "exit stage right" period of a player's prime.
-
No, that's not what I'm saying at all and for the life of me I cannot understand how that's you conclusion after my post. What I'm saying is to put some thought and coherence into what you're saying. You're saying you think a lot of teams are interested, so I asked what teams? "Well the same one interested in Hamels!" Wat? I'm asking you a common sense question, and providing evidence to back up the idea that while there may be a couple teams interested in Lee/Hamels, because of the prohibitive cost the number has to be fairly small, and that puts the Sox in an advantageous position. Saying "I think a lot of teams are after Lee" but failing to substantiate the idea is prime material for being called out on making s*** up.
-
He was. The Phillies like Kelly but want their "headliner" to be Swihart. That would be a terrible idea IMO.
-
That's a cop-out, for one, and two, the other teams interested in Hamels have mostly addressed their pitching concerns, mainly the Padres, who signed Shields. Texas got Gallardo. , and probably wouldn't have had the financial flexibility either ways. Casually, if you read the headlines mentioning Lee to Boston, the other two teams who kicked the tires on Lee were precisely the Padres and Rangers, who have both addressed their pitching concerns.
-
Name the teams that can absorb the 37.5 million price tag attached to him AND have the need. I'll wait.
-
Amaro's terrible. He should've jumped at the offer headlined by Hedges.
-
It's not that clear cut. With the current monetary value of a win slightly exceeding $7 million, a collection of three prospects that can be projected to, on the whole, provide at least 2 WAR per year over their pre-arb years, the picture becomes much more murky. Because exceeded value drops significantly after a player reaches arbitration, it can't be considered such a big "overpay", but still. Why trade marketeable assets in a situation that's not clearly advantageous? That's the way I see it, and I'm sure that figures into the Sox' thinking.
-
It may not worry you, but don't say it's not significant. It's a red flag that not only the Red Sox have waved.
-
Since the Sox are blowing past the LT this season either ways, absorbing the entirety of Lee's deal in order to lessen the prospect burden makes sense.
-
No, because I would personally rather play the lottery ticket and acquire Cliff Lee, assuming health. Amaro wants Swihart for Hamels, and if the Red Sox are going to absorb Hamels' 110 million contract, that's a deal they shouldn't do. The secondary reasons as you call them are enough not to warrant such a gargantuan investment.
-
Oh for the love of God, yes.
-
Yeah yeah, my comment was out of line too. I'm man enough to admit that.
-
Haven't you noticed how every time you try to talk s*** about Hanley something bad happens? Learn your lesson. Hanley is your nemesis.
-
Don't forget the purple drink!
-
As i posted in my other reply, it's not what you said, it's the specific mischaracterization and inherent racism in the comment. I'm being honest when I say I'd like to keep our ceasefire intact, but you're killing me here fred, killing me.
-
I don't think the worst of you fred. But unlike uncle Tom over there, i think it's a good idea to avoid utterly racist comments. I don't think you'd be cool with me calling you burger-eating cracka. If it's cool with you, then i retire my previous comment and let us let racism reign supreme on talksox!
