Kimmi
-
Posts
27,847 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
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 Kimmi
-
I'm with you on being good with our outfielders, catcher, and Story if he doesn't opt out. As far as the other infield positions, I am hoping for solid production from at least 2 out of Mayer, Campbell, and Casas. Wishful thinking maybe, but they are what keeps me from feeling the need to go large on a position player. I'd like Schwarber as a DH. I wouldn't go 4+ years for him, but maybe 3 years at a higher AAV.
-
The Dodgers are ruining baseball.
-
I get it. I think the FO should spend and be willing to exceed the luxury tax limit if the right deals come along. The only part I disagree with is going large and long on a player. My priority would be starting pitching over position players. If we added a #2 pitcher, I'd be okay with adding some solid veteran depth in position players and otherwise, going status quo.
-
I don't necessarily agree that anything short of a championship will be a failure, but I don't disagree with the rest of your post. Our young players are largely unproven, so we really don't know what to expect from them. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add an established, veteran player or two. We need to at least improve our depth.
-
Yes, I know he was really bad at 2B. Being young and athletic, though, I would hope that he could improve defensively. While I understand the value of versatility and being able to play multiple positions, Campbell is one that I think the Sox need to find a position for and leave him there to master it. I agree that his position might not be 2B. -
I admit that it's very risky relying on so many young players who are largely unknown. I'm hoping that Casas can remain healthy and provide some thump, along with the names that you mentioned. There are a lot of ifs, no doubt. Do I really expect the FO to remain status quo on position players? No, I don't, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade new acquirees will provide over the core that we have unless we go big. You know how I feel about that.
-
Red Sox Make First Move of Offseason, Sign Veteran Catcher
Kimmi replied to Nick John's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
I'm always on board for adding depth pieces. -
I really dislike the idea of giving up on Casas or Campbell. There's a reason that they were highly ranked prospects. Prospects don't always work out, obviously, but it's too soon to give up on either. I'd pencil Casas in as our starting first baseman, and maybe even pencil Campbell in as our starting second baseman. I know that I'm banking a lot on potential.
-
The players have every right to go after as much money as they can get. I don't have to like it though.
-
I would not offer Bregman a 4-year contract. I'm interested to see what he ends up getting because $40M a year is a LOT to turn down, despite it only being for 2 more years. My focus is still on starting pitching. I could survive going with the position players that we currently have, assuming good health.
-
There's always figure skating and the upcoming winter Olympics. 🙃
-
It's been too long without a baseball game. Bring on the World Series. At least there's a team I can root for this year, unlike last year's WS which was a nightmare scenario for me.
-
I do not disagree with your thinking here. For me, the shorter the deal, the better.
-
The players are just as greedy as the owners. We have one player opting out of a guaranteed $80M over 2 years to get more money. We had another player who declined $300M. Greedy billionaires versus greedy millionaires? I don't care who gets the money. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not trying to save Henry any money. I am just so fundamentally opposed to the outrageous trend in free agent contracts. I don't want to see my team become the Dodgers. I'd rather be Tampa Bay North, if I had to pick an extreme.
-
I understand that we have to fill in the gaps somehow, either through free agency or through trades. I also understand that we're likely not getting an impact guy on a 4-year deal. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.
-
Not too long ago, I thought that any deal over 4 years was too long, especially for any player already in their 30s. These days, contracts have become so outrageous that a 4-year contract is almost considered a short-term deal. And there is seemingly no end in sight to the outrageousness. A 30-year old player is already considered past his prime. Not that he can't still have some very good years left, but you're paying for past performance. Extending your young players before they reach free agency is now the way to go.
-
That's the ticket right there.
-
Higher payroll correlates to more wins in the regular season. Thus more teams with higher payrolls make the postseason than teams with lower payrolls. Thus, more teams with higher payrolls win the WS than teams with lower payrolls. Beyond that, the playoffs are still largely a crapshoot. At any rate, I'm not looking for the Red Sox to have a payroll in the bottom 50% of teams. I really think they need to reinvest most, if not all, of the money saved from Devers' contract. Just don't sign a superstar to an insane contract. I am a strong believer that you start with a strong farm and a solid, home-grown core, then fill in the gaps through trades or free agency. Not the other way around.
-
If payroll is right around the luxury tax limit every year, going over now and then, they are spending enough on payroll, IMO. It wouldn't make me feel any better that the excess revenue is going make a player a $300M millionaire. And when that contract inevitably becomes an albatross, the team becomes strapped. I know it will never happen, but that excess revenue should be passed on to fans as lower ticket prices, or passed on to the everyday workers like clubhouse attendants and grounds crew as higher salaries.
-
Therein lies the dilemma. But it's certainly better than offering a 28 or 30 year old a 10 year contract based on past performance. IMO
-
OK
-
Sure, but you don't have to spend like LAD to be sustainable.
-
All other things being equal, I will root for the small market team. That said, I'm not condoning being cheapskates. There's a reasonable middle ground in there somewhere.
-
To build a sustainable contender or to win a WS.
-
There are also teams that spent boatloads this season and failed to make the playoffs. There are teams who didn't spend boatloads and did make the playoffs. AND, the playoffs are a crapshoot.
