Kimmi
-
Posts
27,857 -
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
-
Hypocritical might not be the right word, but it certainly is biased saying that Price is not an overpay and Buchholz and Panda are. Again, most people are basing that opinion on whether they like the player or not.
-
You can't look at the contracts in hindsight or from the perspective of "if they perform". At the end of the contracts, you can look back and say whether they ended up being good deals or not. But that is not the same thing as determining up front whether deals are overpays or not. If it's not your money and you don't care how much Henry spends, then none of the contracts should be overpays to you.
-
Before the All Star break, after the All Star break, but more or less, yes. Iwakuma has an injury history dating back to his days in Japan. He got a contract that is 3 times as much and as long as Clay's, not to mention the valuable draft pick given up. And he's 3 years older than Clay. Yet, his deal is a good deal while Clay's is not? LOL
-
Speaking of Clay's option, Iwakuma just signed with the Dodgers for $45mil/3yrs, plus a draft pick. He is also 3 years older than Clay. I've seen comments how this is a good deal for the Dodgers. Check his performance since 2012. It's not that far off from Clay's.
-
For anyone saying that Price's contract is not an overypay but Panda's contract or Buchholz' option is, that is hypocrisy at it's finest. You can't base whether something is an overpay on whether you like/want the player or not. Well, I suppose you can, but that certainly isn't very objective or fair.
-
I agree that Price's contract is better than Greinke's and better than losing Betts or Bogaerts in a trade for Sale or Gray. Still an overpay though. Just to be clear, I am not saying that Dombrowski shouldn't have made the deal. We needed a #1 pitcher and we got one of the best available.
-
It is necessary to make big dollar purchase sometimes. It is also sometimes necessary to trade away prospects to fill holes. Acquiring big name players through free agency or trades should not become the norm though. It is really rather amazing that the Sox have recently graduated so many players, yet still have one of the top farm systems in baseball.
-
I agree. I really like this trade, and I'm a Miley fan also. I like that both pitchers that we acquired are cost-controlled for 5 years. For all you fans of WAR, here's a nice stat that somebody tweeted about Smith: RELIEVERS WITH A HIGHER fWAR THAN CARSON SMITH, 2015 Cody Allen Aroldis Chapman Dellin Betances That's it. Good job Dombrowski.
-
I disagree that Dombrowski didn't set the market. No, he didn't bid against himself, but he set the market by his willingness to pay $30 million more than the Cardinals. I had posted before that I didn't think it was smart for Dombrowski to be so open about what his intentions were in acquiring a #1. Perhaps Price would have accepted the Sox' first offer, which was already $20 million more than the Cards' offer, had there not been so much speculation about how much the Sox were willing to pay.
-
I agree with all of this. Dombrowski simply wrote a check for a lot more than the next highest offer. I'm not sure if you're agreeing that his contract is an overpay or not.
-
Shelby Miller What would it take to get him?
Kimmi replied to Redsox27's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
I don't know a lot about Miller. Bradley, Kelly, and Owens seems like too much to give up for Miller though. I'm not sure Miller can repeat that ERA. -
O'Day says the deal is not final yet. It's pending a physical, which given the Os recent tendency to deem players not healthy, is not a given.
-
I don't really know what's going on with Lee, but I would take a flyer on him for the right price. It would be ideal if we could sign someone like that to a minor league deal for depth, but I can't see that happening. I don't know anything about Alvarez' shoulder concerns, but a quick glance at his numbers (not ERA) say that he's worth a minor league look.
-
Who said anything about him elevating himself to the level of Greinke or Price. His contract is also nowhere in the neighborhood of Greinke or Price. There was every reason to believe that Porcello could at least pitch as well as he did in 2014, and a good possibility that he would improve upon that year. Not only would his AAV be higher, but I can almost guarantee that he would have received more than 4 years.
-
There was no rush to sign Porcello because he pitched poorly. Had he started the season pitching well, and continued that through the trade deadline, it would have either cost the Sox more money/years, or Porcello might have very likely decided to test free agency. The Sox took a gamble which didn't work out last season, but, but it was a smart decision. His extension doesn't start until this year. It might very well end up being a great deal after all. The discount for Porcello came in the form of fewer years.
-
Kimbrel's salary alone would be a mild overpay. The prospect package alone would be an overpay for Kimbrel. The combination of the package plus the salary is an overpay squared. As far as Koji being over 40, I just said that it was VERY WISE of the Sox to get Kimbrel. However, saying that the Sox NEEDED a closer is an overstatement.
-
My opinion is no more speculative than your opinion. That said, I will give you this blurb from Speier, because that's just the kind of poster I am.
-
I agree with this, or at least one more. Darren O'Day has re-signed with the Os for $31/4 yrs.
-
It means that, hindsight aside, extending Porcello for $82.5/4 yrs was really a smart move.
-
For the umpteenth time, my criticism of the trade is not about trading the prospects. It's about receiving somewhat equitable value in return. At any rate, here is what this prospect hugger posted on Nov. 17.
-
I think the Sox could have added 2-3 pieces to the package and gotten a starter, which would have been better bang for the buck. Don't forget that on top of the 4 prospects, the Sox are paying Kimbrel an average of $12 mil/yr. Definitely an overpay. Also, it's not a given that the Sox needed a closer. They do still have Koji. I think it was very wise of the Sox to get Kimbrel, but saying they needed a closer is an overstatement.
-
In terms of straight numbers, based on the pitcher's WAR in the year prior to signing the contract, Lester's contract works out to $4.7 mil/WAR for 6 years and Price's contract works out to $4.8 mil/WAR for 7 years. They are fairly comparable, with Price having the additional year. I thought the FO messed up big time in not re-signing Lester before he hit free agency. That said, I also thought that they were correct in not matching/beating the Cubs final offer for him.
-
"Overpay" is a subjective word. As I posted earlier, to me, overpay is usually more about the number of years than it is about the dollar amount. IMO, Price is worth $31 million a year for about 4-5 years. The 6th and especially the 7th years are what makes it an overpay considering Price's age. I just read Speier's article on how the negotiations for Price went down. According to him, the Sox had an offer on the table for $200/7yrs. The Cards had an offer of $180/7 yrs. Price was set to sign with the Cards. The Sox upped their offer to $210/7yrs. Price's agent said the deal would get done for $217/7 yrs. The Sox paid $37 million more than the next highest offer. To me, that is also an overpay, despite the number of years being the same.
-
They need to turn on their Christmas music and put on their Christmas socks! Life is good!
-
No one knows for sure whether they will become an all star or never play in a major league game. The value of prospects when they are traded is based upon their rankings and their projections. Would you agree that a #1 prospect is worth more in trade value than a #60? I am not an expert on prospects, but if Keith Law and Dave Cameron and every other analyst says that we overpaid in that deal, then we overpaid. It may turn out otherwise, in hindsight, but that doesn't change the fact that we probably could have gotten better value in return for that package.
