Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Bellhorn04

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    55,149

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    76

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings

Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Bellhorn04

  1. Bellhorn04
  2. Bellhorn04
    The Yankees put two penny stocks in their rotation last year and got high returns on both. There are actually a fair number of these stocks that hit, because baseball is such a weirdly unpredictable sport. That's why GM's keep buying them. Cherington couldn't get enough of them this offseason.
  3. Bellhorn04
    OK, I will buy relatively low risk, relatively high reward. To me the thing causing the confusion is what the term risk means here. I've always interpreted low risk/high reward as implying that if it fails, you're not going to lose that much on it. I might argue that Aceves was low risk, high reward. Especially because it's one of the few of ours that actually succeeded.
  4. Bellhorn04
    Billy Beane calls the A's acquisition of Manny Ramirez low risk, high reward.
  5. Bellhorn04
    It seems to me Terry Ryan was saying high risk of failure, high reward if successful. And he was leaving out the financial part altogether. How much money did they lose with Zumaya?
  6. Bellhorn04
  7. Bellhorn04
  8. Bellhorn04
  9. Bellhorn04
    The purpose of the statements by Henry and Lucchino seems clear to me. They're defending themselves against charges that they are being tight with money, that their interest in the team is being distracted by the soccer team etc. They think they're getting a bad rap. This has been going on since the 'bridge year' flap.
  10. Bellhorn04
    Also, nick, if 'the sky's the limit' financially, how do you reconcile that to the Scutaro trade.
  11. Bellhorn04
    Fine, but still nothing there that indicates that Cherington would have the final say on which further expenditures or offers would be approved. Henry and Lucchino have amply demonstrated that they are hands-on executives, and it's them doing the talking here.
  12. Bellhorn04
    The moderator already said he doesn't like pictures being posted. Good old Muggah, making it clear he's mainly around to cause trouble.
  13. Bellhorn04
    Maybe because spring training games haven't even started yet.
  14. Bellhorn04
    It's that simple. Not sure why nick doesn't get it. But apparently he needs a public statement from the Red Sox front office about what the budget is and who set it, before he would accept such a notion.
  15. Bellhorn04
    Absolutely. And if the reports were correct the Red Sox 'had interest'. But he signed with the Yankees for $10 million. Which brings us to one of the key points we're arguing here: were the Red Sox pinching pennies, and if so, where did the directive to pench pennies come from. Personally I highly doubt it came from Benny.
  16. Bellhorn04
    It's definitely not CP, Pumpsie. Doesn't post like him at all.
  17. Bellhorn04
    This post by Pumpsie Green on the other thread deserves to be copied here. "Ben didn't have the resources to plan for the bad. Had Henry opened up his wallet we could have obtained a decent SP. He didn't, and we didn't. And no one is going to trade for any of our mediocre farm system player in exchange for a good ML SP. Hard to blame Cherington for the makeup of this year's team. I blame Epstein because he is the one who upon leaving raped the team."
  18. Bellhorn04
    I think your opinion that Cherington had lots more money to play with is in the extreme minority. Even Pumpsie, on the other thread, is talking about how Cherington's hands were tied financially.
  19. Bellhorn04
  20. Bellhorn04
    So how much more money did Cherington have to spend that he didn't spend, nick? Do you have the answer to that? It doesn't have to be exact, just an estimate within a few million would be fine. I'm sure you can derive that from what Lucchino said, your interpretive skills are remarkable.
  21. Bellhorn04
    No you don't have them. Nobody said the Lux tax wasn't an issue, and nobody gave any indication what the actual budget was. Lucchino pointed out the payroll was going to be high and that lux tax was going to be incurred. Big difference.
  22. Bellhorn04
    Are you serious? You really think Cherington was the one who decided to pinch pennies this year?
  23. Bellhorn04
  24. Bellhorn04
    The history consists of 3 years-2006, 2008, 2010. 2010 he was injured. 2006 was his first year in the AL and yes, he got hammered. 2008 was not that bad at all if you look past the ERA. His WHIP was better than career average and his SO/BB ratio was a career best. And in 2007 he had a great year after throwing 204 innings the year before so the workload thing didn't apply there. There might be something to the alternate year stuff, but the underlying data here doesn't add up to much.
  25. Bellhorn04
    Right, but we might sort of retroactively change the mark later on. Epstein probably scored high marks last offseason. Then Crawford sucks, Lackey bites, Dice-K, Buchholz and Jenks disappear, the team royally implodes and Epstein is out of town.
×
×
  • Create New...