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
    Lots of reaching here. You are trying to convert a cautiously optimistic approach by Red Sox brass into low expectations for the team. That is your interpretation of things, not what was actually said and you can't prove that it's what it was meant.
  2. User Name
    A ton of stuff has to go right every season.
  3. User Name
    ^ No grasp on farm depth. The farm is deep enough, the only prohibition would be actual cost aka not a lack of prospects, but an unwillingness to part with a significant number of them.
  4. User Name
  5. User Name
    According to scouts, he has a great swing that has a very good bat-to-ball path and good-to-great speed. The problem is he cannot take a pitch.
  6. User Name
  7. User Name
    Yahoo's Jeff Passan has the Red Sox estimated opening-day payroll (updated Feb. 10) which, with 10 million added for miscellaneous costs would put them just under the luxury tax. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AlWsZte5CBNRgllyXF1OowYHU84F?slug=jp-passan_hot_stove_daily_boston_red_sox_valentine_021912 http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png
  8. User Name
    In the end, their goals for this season may hinge on how the team performs in the beginning stages of the season. Bard is a vital piece of that puzzle.
  9. User Name
    The problem is trying to read between the lines. You are trying to interpret what others say by applying your own values to it. They are not saying the same thing you're saying. If they are, can you please show me where? First off, they're not going to say outright that the team sucks (and it doesn't), but they know they need another Starting Pitcher. Being "content" doesn't mean there isn't space for change. You're reading too much into it.
  10. User Name
  11. User Name
    RF is Ryan Kalish's spot to lose after he comes back, and didn't they sign Cody Ross? Right now they could go with a Ross-Ellsbury-Sweeney arrangement which should be very good defensively and provide adequate offensive production. As for SS, Aviles could have similar production to Scutaro with more power but less OBP, and of course, Iglesias.
  12. User Name
    Or they actually think this team is loaded with talent, and what happened last year is an outlier. This is a team that, by all standards, should have won 95+ games and imploded. A dose of health and better managing should help close the gap, and the possibility for mid-season acquisitions (which they have done before) is there. I don't understand why you have to magically turn everything possible into a negative. To think that they'd be content with a third place finish is plain stupid, because it affects their ability to make money, and that's their main objective. Changing clubhouse culture is important, but that doesn't mean they can't be succesful in the meantime. There is a difference between realism and complete and utter negativity.
  13. User Name
    The commitments are mutually exclusive. The money they spend on the soccer club has nothing to do with the money they spend on the Red Sox. If they're not spending, it's because they don't want to, not because the soccer team's investment doesn't allow them to.
  14. User Name
    Cook's shoulder is toast though, and his velocity has decreased on a yearly basis the past few years. Padilla's velocity was very much back during WL's.
  15. User Name
    They could potentially still sign Oswalt. Padilla yes, Cook may strain his back playing Top Spin 4 Tennis with his Playstation Move ©.
  16. User Name
  17. User Name
    But who said we couldn't have both? We could have had Ortiz' bat and the pitching, which is my whole point. Also, even though Ortiz may be a bit whiny, let's not oversell his attitude as being a major detriment to the team.
  18. User Name
    Then that would allow them to get under the Lux Tax if they get money from the Epstein issue (and they most likely will) and exercising Lackey's option. If that's not what they're going for, then why didn't they sign a friggin' pitcher? That being said, this whole thing makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
  19. User Name
  20. User Name
    Could have kept Ortiz, Scutaro and signed the pitcher if they were over-cap IMO. Let's wait and see how it all plays out.
  21. User Name
    I disagree with this in principle. He was one of the most productive offensive players in all of MLB last year. That is a fact. Production had to factor into the decision to bring him back, because he's still extremely productive.
  22. User Name
  23. User Name
    The point being that nobody actually knew. Point made. I understand this point, but don't approve of it. After they're over the cap, a couple million will not affect their bottom line, as you imply here. A couple of million would not have been "budget breaking." The true benefit of staying under the cap would have been wiping the slate clean of LT issues for the new CBA, which is much more punishing against LT offenders.
  24. User Name
    That's from a couple days ago, and i'm not inclined to believe anything that comes out of Lucchino's mouth, ever. Specially in the circumstances in which he made the statement, aka defending their "penny pinching" ways.
  25. User Name
    This is a very good point. It's easy to say "Let Ortiz go and go with a platoon at DH or something". But a .900+ OPS is hard to replace.
×
×
  • Create New...