Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Bellhorn04

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    55,037

  • 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Bellhorn04

  1. Bellhorn04
    I know one thing - one of the world's thinnest books would be: 'Buy-low starters who have been big successes for the Red Sox.'
  2. Bellhorn04
    Now I'd like to see a list of the buy-low guys from the last few years that have actually paid off.
  3. Bellhorn04
    Yes. The Red Sox have Bodacious Ben.
  4. Bellhorn04
    I'm looking forward to watching him for years. Although his numbers weren't great this year he was one of the guys I always wanted to watch when he was at the plate.
  5. Bellhorn04
    What would you like to see them do about catcher next year?
  6. Bellhorn04
    And the manager was certainly a lot more balanced than the last one.
  7. Bellhorn04
    Not vastly underestimating, I don't think. Compare to Russell Martin's 2 years/$17 million. Martin is better defensively and not hugely worse offensively. Especially when Salty's OPS this year partially resulted from a high BABip.
  8. Bellhorn04
    I don't think the revenue sharing rebate is quite that much but I could be wrong. However much it is, keep in mind that the rebate is an annual thing so it will always be there as a disincentive to going over the $189 million.
  9. Bellhorn04
    I think they did last year, especially letting Swisher and Martin go and not replacing them with much. That was not the Yankee Way. They might get fed up with the thrifty s*** in a big hurry though.
  10. Bellhorn04
    Look at it this way mark - if the posting fee was a non-issue, the Sox would have been all over Darvish. Darvish's contract is 6 years, 56 million - that's chump change by today's standards. Ryan Dempster - 13.25 million a year. Yu Darvish - 9.33 million a year. What's missing from that picture?
  11. Bellhorn04
    I'm assuming it's also ownership's goal to make a certain amount of profit. I think they would be very much concerned about a $60 million fee they have to pay.
  12. Bellhorn04
    Tanaka won't cost $10 million. Even on the low side, if it's $60 million posting fee plus $60 million for 6 years the total cost is $120 million. That's an average cost of $20 million per year. The only break is that the posting fee isn't counted for luxury tax.
  13. Bellhorn04
    Plus the posting fee. So if the posting fee is $60 million and the contract is 6 years $90 million the total cost is 6 years $150 million.
  14. Bellhorn04
    And his writing clarity is every bit as bad as his reading clarity. I need an interpreter to explain what he was saying there. At first I thought he was saying Ben needed to keep the team together because of it's great chemistry...then he seems to be saying get rid of Ellsbury & Drew etc...it all gets a bit baffling.
  15. Bellhorn04
    The fascination is easy enough to explain. 1) Optimism says Middlebrooks will eventually stabilize at his 2012 level - .835 OPS, 15 HR and 54 RBI in less than half a season. First baseman production. 2) Economics says he's cheap and controlled.
  16. Bellhorn04
    It boggles the mind that he could have been a Twin for a number of years. One of those history-changing blunders in baseball history. 2003...we sign Ortiz for nothing. Early 2004...we come within an eyelash of trading Manny for A-Rod. You can't make this s*** up.
  17. Bellhorn04
    But it pales next to the value delivered by Pedro's 7 years with the Red Sox.
  18. Bellhorn04
    Or maybe that was when they turned on the burners for the home stretch.
  19. Bellhorn04
    Any offer the Sox make will be a token offer for PR purposes. The chances that Bobby Jenks returns to pitch for us next year are as good as the chances of Ellsbury staying.
  20. Bellhorn04
    The original 7 year contract with Sabathia would probably end up regarded as a very acceptable deal for the Yankees. But where they f***ed themselves was with the 3rd year opt-out clause they put in the contract. I couldn't believe that on top of 7 years and 161 million they had to add an opt-out. And sure enough that chicken came home to roost. They ended up tacking on an extra year at 25 million plus a vesting option for yet another year at 25 million. That option vests unless Sabathia misses time in 2016 because of a left shoulder injury. So it could end up as a 9 year 211 million deal. I remember Sabathia at one point said he had no intention of exercising the opt-out. Big shock, he changed his mind. I also remember some talk about how reasonable he was when the terms of the new deal came out. LMAO
  21. Bellhorn04
    I've always thought that 'ace' was a confused, misused and overused term. As for '#1', that too is thrown around loosely but should be easier to define. In 2012 Buchholz was our #1 pitcher by default. But you can't really say that a pitcher with a 4.56 ERA pitched like a #1. There are 30 teams in baseball, so I think the average stats of the top thirty starters in baseball are a pretty good measuring stick for defining a typical #1.
  22. Bellhorn04
    Let's face it, there's a segment of Red Sox fans who are among the worst whiners of any fanbase in sports.
  23. Bellhorn04
    I assume when GE pays no corporate tax it's because of investment tax credits, which again involves spending more than you save. 'Paying no tax' sounds great but you have to see the actual tax returns before you know why.
  24. Bellhorn04
    Sorry, but I can't see how under any circumstances would they 'need' the posting fee, any more than they 'need' any other expenses. Sure it's a tax deduction, but even if the tax rate was say 50%, you have to spend $1.00 to save 50 cents.
  25. Bellhorn04
    From the team's point of view, the only difference between a posting fee and salary is that the posting fee doesn't count toward payroll for luxury tax purposes. So it's potentially less expensive by the amount of the luxury tax that would apply. But otherwise it's the same as paying salary of that amount.
×
×
  • Create New...