Jump to content
It's a late-night date for Jake Bennett with the Angels in Anaheim! Come join our game thread! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Bellhorn04

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    54,883

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    76

 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

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Bellhorn04

  1. Bellhorn04
    Let's assume the truth is that the vesting option played a major role in the move. Do you think the Sox should have said so?
  2. Bellhorn04
    There are some positive signs with the bat. I think he's going to be okay.
  3. Bellhorn04
    I get what you guys are saying, but the Rockets 3-point shooting doomed them as well. 7 for 44 overall, and an incredibly bad 1 for 21 in the second half. That is some epic bricklaying for one of the best teams in the NBA.
  4. Bellhorn04
    Forget it. Cliff is a permanent ban walking.
  5. Bellhorn04
    You'll find out on Larry's death bed, if then. The Sox FO has followed the practice of Omerta since Henry's group bought the team.
  6. Bellhorn04
    Cliff is Pike, 110% guaranteed. I think he even used a name similar to this one before.
  7. Bellhorn04
    But if it wasn't for the vesting option they probably would have hung onto him a while longer. The vesting option ends up hurting Hanley too. It's a lose-lose.
  8. Bellhorn04
    I don't really have a problem with the baseball system and all the guaranteed money, in spite of how much of it the Sox have had to eat. You pays your money and you takes your chances. If you make a bad choice or an unlucky one, it hurts you.
  9. Bellhorn04
    Pike!
  10. Bellhorn04
    Yeah, but you're on record that we'll be lucky to win 86 games, so you've got no credibility anyway.
  11. Bellhorn04
    The vesting option is clearly a non-guaranteed, contingent benefit.
  12. Bellhorn04
    No doubt that the vesting option had a lot to do with injury concerns. What wasn't foreseen was Hanley's precipitous decline in productivity to a negligible WAR over 3.33 years. It could EASILY be argued and supported by data that Hanley failed to earn the option because of his poor productivity (which may still be impacted by some lingering injury issues-who knows).
  13. Bellhorn04
    Um, is there something in a player's contract that guarantees they will play X number of games no matter badly they are performing? Is there a guarantee they won't be released before the contract term is up? If so, Pablo Sandoval should have been howling!!!
  14. Bellhorn04
    Hey, we're already having enough trouble finding anything definitive about the Sox being 'off the hook' as it is LOL
  15. Bellhorn04
    That's a good one, but I think the all-time Rodney joke is the 'second opinion' one. I never get tired of it.
  16. Bellhorn04
    If he got 496, they would likely lose a grievance, huh?
  17. Bellhorn04
    "One of these things is not like the others." What you pointed out there is that sometimes there is a risk in not signing the player.
  18. Bellhorn04
    There really doesn't appear to be one in the CBA.
  19. Bellhorn04
    In my mind there HAS to be some consideration of production and of the team's right to award or deny playing time based on production as any team normally would. And there is plenty of precedence for teams abruptly benching or releasing players who have been slumping for a month or less.
  20. Bellhorn04
    The shifts are definitely not a great thing for the game. I was reading about what happened in a Mets-Marlins game recently. The Marlins had men at first at second and the Mets had a huge overshift to the right. The Marlins runner at second was able to virtually jog over to third unmolested for a 'stolen base' because the Mets had no one close enough to third base to stop it. It was embarrassing, Mickey Mouse stuff.
  21. Bellhorn04
    Hanley was 'on pace' for yet another flatline 0.0 WAR. Hanley was 'on pace' to be rewarded for another flatline 0.0 or slightly negative WAR by being paid another 22 million to produce another similar result another year older! Were the Red Sox wrong to not want to accommodate this?
  22. Bellhorn04
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Is the Swihart honeymoon over already?
  23. Bellhorn04
    Another point about the vesting option - if it wasn't there, if the contract was a straight 4/88, Hanley would not have been DFA'd! The vesting option screwed everyone. Thanks Ben!
  24. Bellhorn04
    The issues you and harmony are raising just make me realize how these vesting options are a recipe for disaster. Hanley was healthy, there's no question about that. But his numbers for 2018 and for the life of the contract were clearly bad enough to justify a team not wanting to have the option vest for another 22 million of miniscule WAR! So are they obligated to keep playing him as a virtual act of charity?
  25. Bellhorn04
    I read some of these comments in Cafardo's article. But there was nothing in these other execs' comments about the vesting option, almost as if they were oblivious of its existence.
×
×
  • Create New...