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
-
Yes, we still have a pretty good line up for two more years. Even if we stayed status quo, I am very confident that our offense will be better than it was last year. It's not like we were an 87 win team last year and have a lot of ground to make up. If Price can stay healthy, then our starting rotation should be very strong as well.
-
Obviously, I disagree, but I certainly hope I am wrong. In 2014 and 2015, we had a very legitimate shot on paper. That's all I can ask of from the GM.
-
Well, not knowing whether they would have increased it anyway, it's hard to say, but yes, it makes sense to me.
-
Just say it with me: "You are right Hitch."
-
I would rather have a legitimate shot every year.
-
So, you are in favor of handing out albatross contracts to avoid staying status quo. Just say it with me: "You are right Kimmi."
-
I realize that there are different degrees of bad contracts. I am on record here that I am okay with signing JD to a 5/130 contract or even a little more dollar wise. I think everyone here would pass on the 7/210 contract. The statement that 'staying status quo is irrational' implies to me that the team should take on the albatross contract rather than staying status quo. My point is that there are times when staying status quo is a better option than not maintaining status quo. In other words, the statement that 'staying status quo is irrational' is irrational.
-
Even if they don't prove to be as good as they are projected to be, when they all, including our starting pitching, hit free agency within 1-2 years of each other, it's going to be hard to retain or replace that magnitude of players.
-
On this, we agree. And we don't have the cost controlled players to replace them.
-
I was also not impressed by the article. As I said, I don't think Collins defended his opinion well at all.
-
Easier said than done. Where's the money coming from? And sure, we could develop our own starting pitching. In time for 2020 or 2021?
-
I meant that SBF was against signing Beltre to the original one year deal. He was probably all for trying to re-sign him.
-
That's fair enough. Then what about pitching? And what about replacing our 1st and 2nd basemen?
-
But which is more irrational? Going status quo when the team is already a contender, or handing out a bad contract to avoid going status quo? I'll wait for your response that does not answer my question.
-
I'm not a betting person either, but I'd bed on JD signing with the Sox.
-
I don't like that sentence that you quoted, but not because of our last place finishes, which have nothing to do with anything, but because being the 'freaking Red Sox' doesn't mean that we can sign whomever we want. That's just not realistic, for many reasons.
-
You don't have to sell me on it. I loved the deal. It's my kind of deal. (So was the Mike Cameron signing). I just remember hearing a lot of disagreement about signing him. For some reason, SeaBeachFred comes to mind, though I can't say for sure he was one that was against it.
-
I don't think he makes a very strong case for his opinion. He says that the Red Sox can re-sign or sign any player that they want to, and that Henry has shown a willingness to spend. Well, yes, that's all true. Retaining all of our young core is not at all realistic, however. The budget is not limitless.
-
I am talking about holding the line in terms of the number of years. I do not want Dombrowski to offer more than 5 years. If he knows that another team has outbid him in terms of dollars, and he's close, I would be okay with him increasing his dollar amount, within reason. Hard to know exactly what 'within reason' is without knowing his or anyone else's bids. But he absolutely needs to hold the line at 5 years.
-
I completely agree with you about the downside of signing JD to a long contract. I think even 5 years is too long, but I don't think it will get done for less than that. Believe me, I would be thrilled if we could get JD for 3 years. I just don't think it's likely that his market drops below 5 years.
-
It's an overpay, but it's a better option (at 5 years) than trading away valuable prospects for a one year rental. If JD won't sign for 5 years, then status quo becomes the better option.
-
I don't agree with what you're saying here. IMO, Boras would make a statement like this in order to get the Sox to increase its offer.
-
I agree with you. If Boras wants more bidders, he should be saying that JD is willing to play wherever a team needs him, including DH. That not only increases his attractiveness in terms of on the field matters, but also in off the field matters. He's a good team player, good clubhouse guy, etc. The only reason I can think of for Boras to make a statement that JD does not want to DH is to try to get Dombrowski to bid against himself, which would imply that there are no other competitive offers.
-
I do agree that if JD has two equal offers, he would prefer the one that allows him to be an everyday outfielder over being a DH. In that case, I think the Red Sox would have to increase their offer by a little bit. But I don't think JD would take a significantly lesser offer just to be able to play outfield.
-
Yes, but I haven't heard anything since that to indicate otherwise.
