Kimmi
-
Posts
27,883 -
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Kimmi
-
Thank you. So all of these unsigned players have all kinds of time. LOL I would be very antsy if I were them.
-
Pitchers and catchers report this week, and still so many unsigned players. When was it that we signed JD last year?
-
I am talking about negative PR for bad contracts (or trades) in general, not just for Kimbrel. Yes, we were excited about having Kimbrel on the team, myself included. Being excited about having a player on the team does not mean the same thing as liking or agreeing with the contract or the trade. Price is another player who falls into that category for me.
-
Completely agree Moon. Cincinnati strikes me as one of those teams that does just enough to give the appearance of being competitive, though admittedly, I don't really know their MO that well. Something needs to be done to discourage these teams who are consistently putting poor quality on the field.
-
It's always nice to hear about when our guys show up early, committed and ready to go.
-
I wonder how feasible it would be to allow contracts that would vest based on performance rather than only on plate appearances or innings pitched. A team could guarantee the first 5 or 6 years to someone like Machado, then for each year following that, the contract would continue if the player meets a certain level of performance. If Machado ends up being as good as he thinks he is, then he will end up with his 10 year deal. The performance standard would have to take aging into consideration.
-
I agree that there is a case for a team to sign a 26 year old star. I disagree that there is a case for almost any team to sign that star to a 10 year contract. Yes, awful is relative. IMO, signing any player, including Mookie, to a 10 year deal would be awful, though it would be a lot less awful than signing Miggy to a 10 year deal. Okay, maybe for Mookie it wouldn't be awful, but it wouldn't be good either.
-
That is very awesome when you look at it that way. There was a long extra inning postseason game in 2005, I believe, between the Astros and the White Sox. It was one of best non Red Sox games that I have watched. I'd hate to lose that kind of drama. And more recently, the postseason marathon between the Sox and the Dodgers.
-
Prime is more like 27 or 28. Players are already in decline by the age of 30.
-
The contract would likely be a net win on the whole. But dealing with that kind of dead money for the last 3 years is not easy. Yes, I know the owners can afford it, but realistically, the dead money will keep the owners from fulfilling another need in future years.
-
The Price contract was not a wise decision. It has worked out so far, but it was still not wise to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year deal.
-
Of course they can afford it. But expecting owners to make poor business decisions simply because they can afford it is really not fair. The owners did not get to where they are by spending recklessly.
-
It's almost like I wrote this post myself. The next question is, should Mookie be extended for 10 years (or more) like many people here think he should?
-
Yes, but much of it could be negative PR for signing a player to a bad contract.
-
^^This.
-
I agree with this post.
-
I know you've posted about your softball leagues before, and I'm impressed by what you guys do every time I read about it. You go Oldtimer!
-
It's not right for owners to pocket all the money, without any consideration towards building a competitive team. OTOH, I don't think it's fair to expect owners to hand out awful contracts that they know will become dead money. The justification that 'they can afford it' really isn't fair. There has to be a better way to make sure the owners' rights and responsibilities are upheld.
-
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. Do not change the rules of extra inning games.
-
The fact that teams almost always win 40% to 60% of their games has to do with the nature of baseball, not with any so called parity. Winning 40% of games gives a team roughly 65 wins. However, 48 of those wins are accrued by replacement level, basically 'given' wins. Of the remaining 114 games, getting to 65 wins requires a team to only win 17 games above replacement level. When a few teams are spending north of $200 million while other teams are spending $70 million or less, that's not parity.
-
Maybe it's the same in all of the major sports, but that doesn't make it any better.
-
I've always liked the idea of teams having 6 years of control over their young players, but perhaps it would be best for baseball if the control period is shortened to 4 years.
-
Never had the privilege of seeing him play. RIP Frank
-
It's possible that Pom out pitches Eovaldi this season (though peripheral numbers suggest otherwise), but the issue is not which one of those guys has a better season. Our starters not named Sale, Price, Porcello, or Rodriguez, combined for a WAR of 0.2 (with Pom coming in at -0.3). I am confident that Eovaldi is going to be decent improvement over that.
-
I'll go with Swihart, if he isn't traded before then.
