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
-
No way - and he has a QO on him iirc. If you want to get a past prime bat - offer the Rox a sack of potatoes for Carlos Gonzalez who only has a year attached to him.
-
Agreed - the big point is this ... some subset of those guys should work out because they all have quality stuff. The foolishness is betting on any particular set of pitchers as the answer.
-
Kimbrel's command got spotty, but he was striking out as many as ever. The bet is he will be fine - limited value because he is not that flexible (but you knew that when you traded for him). The Thornburg move allows them to ease back Carson Smith. Bringing back Abad makes sense to me - realistically you want to keep as many pitchers who could be good. The history of bullpen dynamics shows that some of these guys will stink and some won't. Numbers address that risk.
-
The Cubs are collecting options. Wade Davis, Uehara, Carl Edwards Jr ... there are very very few relievers you plug and play and feel like you are done. 2004 Foulke was one of those pitchers and he fell to pieces after that. Thornburg made Uehara a luxury - but again, the best way to build a bullpen is to amass guys with bat-missing stuff and let them sort it out.
-
I am not saying DD has destroyed this team's future. I don't know. It is a fair question to ask. I like all the moves - and if you push major chips, it's for Chris Sale (as opposed to say any closer or Pomeranz). It's fun for our kids to be the core - and ultimately the better way to keep the window of opportunity open for a long time. But that is not DD's timeline anyway - and hey, we have a chance to win it all know. Acknowledging injuries, and just the fact that baseball is fluky - we've maximized our chances to do something special. The ChiSox are going to stink, but with some direction - and it is always fun to see guys on the ground floor. It was one of the charms of our 2016 team, to see the kids blossom.
-
they should get paid - they should not be guaranteed 5 years. Giants won 3 world series in 6 years with 3 different closers. There is so much darn luck that throwing bodies at it is just a better bet.
-
Year to year volatility, the relative low cost to find approximate production. That they are all starters who failed. And either way, it is the bet on a reliever to hold 5 years of performance is forever dicey
-
It is harder to generate chances (and more controllable). This is baseball, a GM cannot actually win the World Series ... take the team to the water and see what happens.
-
Crazy deal - reliever volatility has not changed. Miller could also just go up in smoke very easily - the reasons he cannot reasonably start again are still there. Chapman could be very good - but it is very hard for a 1-inning pitcher to deliver that sort of value. Ian Desmond to the Rockies has clinched the "worst deal of the offseason" prize. This is on the podium.
-
Some of that is just a new boss. Some of that is fine. I do share your concern on some levels. The team's scouting was among the best - as was the development and analytics. You hate losing good people. Dombrowski has been a very successful executive - albeit in an older school sort of way, which is not bad. This philosophy is good for this team in the shorter run - the longer term is an open question, but I don't expect Dombrowski to be around to worry about that, so what does he care? If the team wins a title or two in the interim, it works for him. The team he has left - as you'd expect - shapes up to be very good, but yes, with a little higher risk than existed under the previous administration. Again, the fascinating thing is the Red Sox breaking up a best-in-industry sort of front office. It is weird to see John Henry seeming like he has been possessed by another human being.
-
That part is fine - the question is whether the high A sort of ranks are still flowing with the same amount of star potential. We know there will be attrition - that's baseball. But this org has been successful at getting tons of ceiling into the org - especially relative to their draft spots. Will that persist?
-
I share your concern - will he keep the kids coming. I think it is an open question.
-
I could see him being moved - possibly to back up some of the prospect depth lost. He has value as a mid rotation starter or a prime closer conversion candidate if a team is so inclined..
-
Worst move of the offseason so far - Ian Desmond to Colorado for 5/70. He's not that good, he can't play CF and the Rockies gave up a 1R. That said - if the Red Sox REALLY wanted a DH plug in (not that they do with Moreland in the fold) - kicking the tires on one year of Carlos Gonzalez would not have been an awful idea.
-
Tremendous deal for the White Sox if that is the trade. Nats needed a CF, but the White Sox got a ton back. Their rebuild looks awfully promising.
-
It will make him happy undoubtedly. The people he is replacing were ridiculously good at their jobs. You can see that with how quickly our guys get scooped up by other teams looking at best-in-industry folks.
-
I agree that it was a terrific move for the Royals
-
For a team with the Red Sox resources - the purpose of the system (as far as producing kids for us) is stars. There are a myriad of ways to find worker bees. And the Red Sox have consciously focused on upside, upside, upside. That the system has produced a Betts and Bogaerts is way more significant than the number of Kyle Weilands who did not go anywhere. The vast majority of teams do not spit that out.
-
Did Wilbur do this with the other 29 teams? This sort of analysis (and obviously the Red Sox are not perfect) is terribly myopic in its focus.
-
I think it is a deal that makes sense for the Cubs - and they had surplus. I would not love the move - but this is better than doing what the Giants did. I agree with you in that I love the deal for the Royals.
-
Different time horizon, and young talent coming out the ears - they have to pay all these guys eventually ...
-
Did they whiff? The assumption is that their hit rate was low - when all you know are the absolute numbers. That is a dubious assumption at best - certainly the way the front office got raided year after year shows how low the hit rate is.
-
This is simply not true relative to other teams - and moreover, when those people are producing All-Star SS's and Top 10 overall player, who cares. The point is to produce stars - it's the venture capitalist idea. You're better than this.
-
Really strong move by the Royals. Teams like them cannot afford to overpay relief pitching - they have a terrific in house solution anyway. Soler was frozen out of the Cubs outfield (especially if they intend to keep Fowler), but is a ridiculously talented guy who has been productive when he's had run. Cubs used surplus to address a need - it is solid for them.
-
Of course there was a win now - but the question was on the "how" ... it's moot either way. I like all the moves - how can you not? But I don't want the infrastructure to atrophy either - and that is a legitimate thing to watch.