Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

sk7326

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. sk7326
    There is no meaningful debt ... the big hitch, stadium debt service is the sort of thing which the Red Sox don't have to actually contend with. Fenway, like Wrigley is a license to print money.
  2. sk7326
    Over the life of the contract it has been a significant win ... now it's more neutral. Pedroia was a 5 win player last year, one of the best infielders in the league - which in isolation is well well worth that salary. It's life with a massive contract - the early parts pay for the late ones. Altuve did not have FA rights when he signed his deal - you EXPECT those to be discounts.
  3. sk7326
    We are on the same page - it is an internal limit! So a legitimate answer for "how do we pay for Betts" is for the very rich kazillionaires and their exceedingly lucrative franchise to increase the limit.
  4. sk7326
    Yes. NBA is there now. Just hope that it is (relatively) tasteful.
  5. sk7326
    All of those 3 teams were awesome - that we did not see it coming was because we are Red Sox fans conditioned to not believe. But seriously - the 2003 team was arguably the league's best team. Entering 2004, we KNEW they could win the whole damn thing. It became unexpected after that 19-8 loss. Just like the 2007 team became unexpected after the Guardians took a 3-1 lead. The 2013 team was the best team in the league from wire to wire. There is no such thing as a baseball team which is guaranteed a win - even the biggest mismatch in a series is still 60-40 tops.
  6. sk7326
    See Lancelloti, Rick or Davis, Crash He'll be up in September and there will be postseason roster spots if he earns it
  7. sk7326
    There are 30 teams - contending is hard - so if you can get to the tournament you gotta do it. I think there are limits - but extending stars in their prime is not one of them. As Don Draper noted, "That's what the money's for!"
  8. sk7326
    I misinterpreted the CC - since I think of the Yankees pitcher .. who of course was very much worth the original contract he got. (not the resign after he opted out)
  9. sk7326
    top pitching and defense ... they have been excellent in 2 of the 3 phases. And - as we've noted all year - there is reason to think there is upside still offensively.
  10. sk7326
    What has helped is this team has been a truly outstanding run prevention outfit - the defense has been excellent, which has allowed them to work through some of the pitching imperfections.
  11. sk7326
    My view is fairly simple - every chance you have to put up a flag, you gotta take it. It's why I cannot criticize Dombrowski's tour in Detroit. Ilitch wanted a winner at any cost - Dombrowski got him one. Yeah they did not get to the finish line, but as we know - a GM cannot do anything about that.
  12. sk7326
    In terms of results for money, Sandoval is far and away the worst. In terms of worst idea, CC's re-signing is up there. Gonzalez was a pretty good idea - he looked every bit that player early ... and to be fair to him, he had about 5 years of the deal where he was at least a good MLB 1B. A disappointment relative to salary - but not a horrific one. As much as anything Gonzalez trade, while a dump - was really also giving the Dodgers some actual quality to absorb Beckett and Crawford's deal.
  13. sk7326
    Pablo would like to have a word with you. The Price deal has been fairly unlucky so far.
  14. sk7326
    I don't know - might not be internal (Cozart for a short deal) ... indeed a deal might not be there. I'd just be curious - what would Bogaerts with 2 years of control get you. Given the difficulties that others have noted adding young talent with CBA changes - do you proactively look at moving people if you are convinced he is not going to be a superstar. I am not advocating a deal - but it is worth making the calls. (O's should have done this with Machado before the deadline)
  15. sk7326
    A forward looking idea could be to look into the trade market for Bogaerts THIS offseason ... he is a good player, possibly very good. I am bullish - but with his FA being a year before Betts and Bradley ... if you think you can staff SS adequately, and get a large haul back, I can understand that.
  16. sk7326
    the strawman is strong in this one - so let me rephrase The Red Sox have carried a large payroll - as they should. They have largely managed it well. Letting Betts walk at the age of 27 would not be a good use of payroll - and if you cite the tax as a reason not to make THAT decision, it is bad management. It is fair game for lots of other decisions. (8 figure closers, cough cough)
  17. sk7326
    Nunez is there to swing the bat - so far it has been good. His versatility is super helpful - he is kind of poor defensively wherever he plays, but as a supersub, it's fine.
  18. sk7326
    I know the deterrents. The draft pick deterrent is small if the team is good. The difference between 28 and 38 is small. That the team has to make choices on players is self evident. These decisions are ultimately business case ones - can the team carry lots of tax ... sure, if there is the requisite revenue bumps to go with it. Certainly the Red Sox marginal product per win is high ... certainly paying the tax to field a 75 win team is absurd. To field a 95 win one in a very high revenue market is a different deal.
  19. sk7326
    I am not advocating for anything stupid baseball-wise. But for a team like Boston, it can be the cost of doing business. And - re-signing young stars is a good use of that money. The draft deterrent is significant - although how significant is tricky - since if the team itself is not actually bad, the marginal impact is smallish. The main deterrent is financial ... and I am for the most part very skeptical of a high revenue team whining about this, especially when the team is an actual contender.
  20. sk7326
    Nunez is definitely one of those "hot craps roller" sort of hitters ... he's up there to swing ... but if he is squaring it up, hooray, ride it as long as possible. Add his ability to play a ton of positions (granted, all of them pretty badly) and he is very helpful in 12-13 man pitching staff baseball.
  21. sk7326
    It wouldn't QUITE be like that ... because the lineup wraps around. There are two things to balance with a lineup ... 1. You want your best hitters coming up as often as possible 2. You want your best hitters coming up with lots of run creation opportunities You bat your top OPS guy 1st ... you get #1, but at the expense of #2. Batting your best hitter 2nd (I need to find the book where the study is from) - by a small margin (all the margins are small) - is the best way to balance the two.
  22. sk7326
    It's baseball - no reason not to be optimistic. Even the worst team in the league pulled off an 11-8 stretch during the season. Get in the tournament, see what happens.
  23. sk7326
    If the bus passes by a World Series stop or two yippee
  24. sk7326
    It is because ownership did not WANT to pay the tax - which is their prerogative. But it is their CHOICE - because they want to take some profits ... which is fine. This is America, after all. By calling it a cap - you are buying into the idea that management's hands are tied by the rules, which of course is nonsense. As a grownup who realizes that Sox fans pay the highest prices for just about everything (maybe behind Yankees fans in some areas - I am not looking this up), I have no problem questioning ownership's priorities if this is the case.
  25. sk7326
    Because there is no cap
×
×
  • Create New...