sk7326
-
Posts
7,647 -
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
I think they go one-year at a time with Bradley and Rodriguez ... try to get a 6 year extension for a reasonable amount ($150M would be reasonable) for Betts ... Bogaerts season (and how much of it was injury related) almost forces the Red Sox to just make a deal for next year. Explore a short pre-arb extension with Pomeranz although I am not that moved either direction
-
Wrong internal improvement
-
It is a sound move. What you hope is that they have a plan to replace some of the catching instruction he was able to provide in his prior role.
-
It's a much smaller penalty to go after QO guys ... and I do think it is good for both sides. Teams are not stuck giving offers to guys they do not want to keep, and players have actual FA.
-
I think it is more understanding that he entered a front office which actually worked. When you are one of the league's best shops - you don't throw all of it away.
-
In 2 or 3 years - Mookie is 27. Some people will be signed and others will not ... I cannot disagree with the assertion that this team will not field a contender in 3 years any more vehemently.
-
I think both would be. Granderson can't hit lefties anymore - so he'd be part of a platoon solution. I don't love it - but if we have to go with a shorter term approach, that's what I'd do.
-
I could do Morrison. I could also see Curtis Granderson as a lefty platoon partner and juggle Travis-Ramirez-Granderson across the two positions. For additional starters? My top choice would be to offer Sabbathia a 1-year deal Brandon Philips would be a good choice for an extra infielder who can play 2B and 3B enough and fake SS at least as well as Nunez did.
-
Since 2002, 13 of the 16 seasons were "good" - my definition of good is, entering September with a realistic path to a playoff spot.
-
I am guessing a lot. Hand/wrist injuries (gripping the f'ing bat!) are very hard to fix during the season. Chavis, Bryce Harper, Pedroia have all had seasons totally sunk because of injuries in that area.
-
One thing Gammons wrote was that Dombrowski - to his credit - has kept a lot of the analytics and best practices the Red Sox had when he arrived. He did not pooh pooh analytics so much as he plead a measure of ignorance, but respected it. Yeah there was a large brain drain - but you expect that given a new guy in charge. But it is nice they are definitely committed. It doesn't take a sleuth to see there is probably a lot of research to say, augment UZR with the statcast launch angle, exit velocity data, along with initial positioning.
-
They might not have wanted to sign Scherzer and though Price would be a better investment for that deal. So far that looks problematic - although not for the reason I would have expected.
-
They can hold their nose, put Merrero at 2nd and be fine.
-
Yes and no. It was not planned that Betts would catch up and overtake the class above him. What will happen is there will be a few of the young stars who will stay (although ALL OF THEM STAYING is an option the Red Sox have that other teams don't) - and other guys who leave or get dealt. There will be other good players staffed via trade, maybe a big FA. And then maybe it's somebody in the organization like a Travis - or maybe it's fishing for more fungible big league assets who usually don't cost much money (middle of the road corner bats, defensive infielders). Really the title team lineups were the stars we all know backed up by meh veterans on short hitches like Mike Carp, Eric Hinske, Daniel Nava. The trickier thing is finding those guys consistently. There are enough of those journeymen around in any given year for a team like the Red Sox to fill in gaps. (a team like Tampa on the other hand is better off giving it to a kiddo - assuming they have a lot of gaps)
-
That is not realistic. Every team faces this. Prospects graduate - and then there might be more but they are in Single A or something.
-
The cliffs were not because they didn't try - or because of weird financial constraints. They were because the players did not perform as planned. That is a huge difference than pretending the Red Sox are a mid-tier college football team.
-
If a team built with Betts, Benintendi, Devers and a ginormous pile of money cannot keep a contender going - then somebody is doing it wrong. Nobody argues that decisions have to be made - I am certainly not arguing keeping this team together until Bradley is 37. But letting 27-28 year old Top 20 players walk on principle is not what fans should have to expect. If you are defining a cliff by "oh bother, look at all these decisions - I guess we'll be a 70 win team in 2021" - then that doesn't make any sense.
-
Every team will go through that. If there is a legitimate cliff in 2 years where none of a wildly high revenue team's core is even 28 then it raises questions about what the heck this is all for.
-
There is not actually much evidence that Moose is a great 3B defensively vs just letting a 21 year old grow in the way he has since he was 17
-
They charge fans more than virtually any other team ... that is my answer. Winning rings is better than just missing 10 years in a row. But baseball affords almost no control of winning vs just missing. If you can make the tournament 8 years out of 10, that is 8 legitimate chances to win the title. Baseball is not like the NCAA Tournament where MD-Eastern Shore is happy to be there to be a first round speed bump for Kansas or Duke. You make the draw - you can just get hot for a month and presto. In a world where in my lifetime, an 83-78 team and an 85-77 team won the whole thing, the only thing a team builder can do is give his team a swing at winning the 11-12 games.
-
I know! One whole season. But the sentiment is right. True #1 seeds guarantee very little. If you do WS (best team - I mostly went with best record, but used some judgment to account for differences in division strength) 2017: Astros won (Dodgers) 2016: Cubs (Cubs) 2015: Royals (Cardinals) 2014: Giants (Angels) 2013: Red Sox (Red Sox) 2012: Giants (Nationals) 2011: Cardinals (Phillies) 2010: Giants (Phillies) 2009: Yankees (Yankees) 2008: Phillies (Rays) 2007: Red Sox (Red Sox) 2006: Cardinals (Yankees) 2005: White Sox (White Sox) 2004: Red Sox (Yankees) So - realistically 5 times in 14 years where what felt like the best team did not win the title. I think this reflects the reality of baseball. While it is not purely random (the cream rises somewhat) ... there is almost never a baseball playoffs where I would bet ANY team against the field.
-
Since playoffs are so flukey - there is no proven way to ensure continued tournament success - better to get to the tournament and see what happens. Seriously, the Cubs were the best team in baseball by a mile last year - and still had to be life and death to beat Cleveland. The Dodgers were the best team in baseball by a mile this year - and lost a Game 7 at home. The best team wins pretty darn rarely in this sport.
-
If the window closes in 2 seasons it is because the Red Sox chose not to serve their fans properly.
-
The cliff is entirely self-determined. It cannot be a true cliff if none of your stars will be even 29 by then.
-
Really Moose vs Hosmer is whether you prefer Hosmer's vastly superior on base skills vs the Moustakas being an average-little above average 3B. Citing UZR for 1st basemen value has a lot of problems anyway. It seems like Hosmer is perfectly fine there - there are a few in the Bellinger/ old timey Keith Hernandez level ... but the vast majority are meh, and Hosmer is in that pile.