sk7326
-
Posts
7,633 -
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
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
He's here - how he got here doesn't matter ... use him in the way that will help the most
-
I think they will look - but Buchholz could be immensely valuable as a swingman ... you hate paying 13M for it, but it would not be a ripoff either.
-
The White Sox did fine - less major league certainty than I expected, but they got a ton of upside.
-
I have no idea how the Red Sox pulled this off without trading Eduardo Rodriguez - you'd think the ChiSox would want some major league help coming back. Moncada could be that help - but it is an open question - though he is an excellent prospect.
-
Moncada fell behind Devers in the org ladder for 3B/COF ... and besides good players cost stuff. The Sox have too good a core not to aim high. Sox did this without giving up Groome, Devers or (most remarkably since I thought the White Sox would want major league help) Rodriguez.
-
This is a really strong deal for Boston - it is hard to cut it any other way.
-
I think if it were Devers, it would have made the "main story". But seriously ... Price-Porcello-Sale-Rodriguez shapes out to be a hell of a Top 4 with Pomeranz, Buchholz and Wright as very useful swing guys. I am a little surprised the Sox could do this without Rodriguez - who showed significant flashes of stardom last season.
-
Is he? Moncada gave some interesting indications but the range of outcomes is very wide.
-
my favorite tweet on the topic https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/806201886151938048
-
His sky high post Single A strikeout rate did ... but either way a tremendous get. I have a sense Devers might stay - I think the org might have chosen him over Moncada for 3B of the future.
-
Back up 1B - if that is the only need then who cares? Thornburg struck out 34% of hitters last year. You get his arb years without any real core upside being dealt. Knocks everybody down a peg to Kimbrel and allows them to ease in Carson Smith. Also gives a little flexibility with Uehara - who I'd still throw a 1 year deal at.
-
Depends on what you want - after all if you are looking at WAR to be a comprehensive "who's the best" measure it is destined to fail. For what any WAR measure is - a normalized sum of everything measurable a player does - it's good. Like any measure, you want consistency and that it is measuring what it is trying to measure. WAR (regardless of flavor - and teams use their own) fits the bill - much moreso than say RBIs.
-
Three years is a lot in the development curve
-
It's about staying current with the industry. One expects that out of someone covering, say financial markets. Seems like the least the writers can do - get current to reflect how front offices are actually making decisions.
-
Forearm problems = uh oh
-
I think it's like life. There are some bad eggs, and some true leader of men - and a bunch of guys in the middle. Beckett - in terms of chemistry hooey - was probably the middle. It went well when things went well and the reverse. (it's why chemistry is always a trailing factor to talent and success)
-
What does that even mean? All the criteria I can think of to define "most valuable" in this context comes down to; * Pretty good teammates (so your team contends) * A bad backup (so you are indispensible) Essentially Trout is penalized for having bad management. That team would be early 2000s Tigers bad without him - that sounds like a huge difference also. There is no win scenario for the Red Sox this year that did not involve Betts making a significant leap.
-
Certainly the way Beckett poisoned the clubhouse in 2007 was an issue.
-
For a combined $18M ... without the trade the roster spots would not have been there - although the money under Henry's sofa cushions probably would have been.
-
I think the trade was fine ... I always point out the 2013 title came because of (in no particular order) A. A totally out of nowhere year by Victorino (and for that matter Mike Carp, which allowed the Sox to operate a credible LF platoon) B. Our good players finally being healthy C. A remarkable (but not exactly out of nowhere) season by Uehara. There is not a ton which the trade directly contributed to otherwise.
-
The MVP rules explicitly say that pitchers are considered fair game. Starters pitch fewer games but have much more influence on the games than a position player. It is hard for a pitcher to deliver MVP level performances - but they can. Verlander did when he won. Now the Eck, Willie Hernandez atrocities are a different kettle of fish. And remember, when Pedro lost, two voters did not put him on the ballot due to feeling that pitchers have their own award. They violated the rules of the award by not considering pitchers. If you did not think Pedro was a Top 10 player that season you have left your sense.
-
I never said the budget is limitless. I did say that the Red Sox can always increase the budget for the right reasons - there is no practical move which is actually unaffordable i.e. preventing the store from being open. The budget is a matter of how much the owners want to put into their toy. The team is a mint.
-
makes sense - it was really a 4 man race until the end of september when it shrunk to two.
-
I think with baseball there are fewer excuses on that front. Performance is much easier to measure and separate than in a sport like basketball. A good player on a bad team's contribution is much more transparent.
-
The flexibility should be the same as the other months within a series - it also allows opponents to be able to prepare a bit more reasonably. Honestly in baseball the roster rules are precisely backwards. Seriously, they should start the minor league season later and expand the roster in APRIL when the players are still getting stretched out.