moonslav59
-
Posts
103,416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
128
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 moonslav59
-
Let's say the catcher puts his mitt right on the edge of the K zone, but close enough that the ump will call a strike 99% of the time, if you hit the mitt every time. Pitcher A misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the K zone side. Pitcher B misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the out of zone size. In theory, Pitcher A has great control and good to great command. Pitcher B has horrible control but good to great command, as he misses the mitt by the same amount as pitcher A. Is this correct? It just seems off to me, for some reason, although I get the definitions applied by people who analyze pitchers.
-
Bell's gonna love this hypothetical: Pitcher A aims for the middle of the plate, no matter where his catcher wants him to throw. He misses the target every time, but is off by just enough that almost all his pitches are near the edge of the K zone but are in the strike zone. (He's maybe 8-12+ inches off target every pitch.) We say he has great control but poor command, as he significantly misses the mitt almost every time. Pitcher B aims for the target set by the catcher's mitt and misses within an inch or two almost every time, but often to side that makes him miss the K zone. He misses the K zone more than pitchers A, and we say he has bad control, because of all the out-of-K zone pitches he throws, but he has good command, because he is almost always within an inch or two of the intended target. I get the distinction and connotations attached to each word, but it rubs me the wrong way to say pitcher A has better control of his pitches.
-
I said, I get it. I just think the word choice was wrong, but it's not worth trying to change it, now.
-
Slot: $364M Bonus: $600K Not much, but nearly double.
-
No income tax. Decent property tax. They get most of their tax revenue from a high sales tax. (6.25%, but most local areas add up to 2% more, making it 8.0 to 8.25%.)
-
I would think any team trading a top SP'er would want some pitching back, in return, but the main player in the Sale trade was Moncada. The main player in the Beckett trade was HRam. The pitchers added were secondary, but both Anibal Sanchez and Kopech look a lot better than Wikelman & Perales. Maybe a top positional prospect plus one from Houck, Crawford or Winckowski can get the job done, but we'll see. I find it hard to stomach a plan of Yamo or bust. If they don't even try for Monty and a good 3rd tier guy like Imanaga, Stroman or Giolito, the sham should be obvious to one and all. "Full throttle?" LMAO! Sick!
-
I don't recall anyone loving the pick. Some felt the underslot pick helped us get Jordan and Drohan, later, and that was a good thing, but I don't remember anyone loving this draft.
-
If they missed out on Gray, ERod, Wacha, and I'll add Lugo, because they will end up adding one or two better SP'ers, all is good on that front, but like you, I have serious doubts we will pull it off.
-
I get the distinction, but I think a guy who misses his target by the length of the long diagonal of the K zone, often should not be labelled as having more "control" than one who misses by a half inch out of the K-Zone and 1 inch from the target. I realize "control" has a different connotation in baseball, but maybe a different word should be used. Missing by a couple feet or more does not look like control, to me.
-
Craig Breslow hired as Head Of Baseball Operations
moonslav59 replied to Tedballgame's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
This is one of the most encouraging articles I've read about the possible future of Sox pitching. I'm hopeful change will begin to be seen, very soon. -
Everyone? And no, a 17 year old drafted 17th during a COVID season with nobody playing baseball is not always expected to be ML ready after 3 years of minor league ball. Oh, and by the way, soxprospects.com says he should be ML ready b y late 2024, so that sounds pretty close. I'm not expecting great things from Yorke and never did. However, I have not lost hope he might do well. I'm looking for a 1 season fiz at 2B in hopes that Mayer and or Yorke can be an impact in 2025, as Story has hopefully re-established himself as a plus-plus middle infielder. BTV shows Yorke with some trade value. I'd prefer to trade him than a big 3 one.
-
It would improve the team, but not really the long term outlook. If we don't do enough to compete in 2024, at least add only guys that will be just as good or better from 2025-2027 or beyond. I'd still be bummed, but at least 2025 would look better.
-
Agreed. I'd rather we just sign one guy- Yamo, and then go all in, next winter. That's a better "punt."
-
I mis-typed.
-
He was high on my wish list, and I liked the shorter deal.
-
Some of those FA SP'er signings over the last few years look like steals, now. The Castillo extension, too.
-
Something will happen. I just hope it's more than Stroman, Imanaga and a 2Bman.
-
I’m fine with trying, but his comments make me think he’ll want more than $250/6. If I’m wrong, might make the trade at $250M/8.
-
True. I remember hating the Kimbrell trade for the same reason, but his "FA market" contract cost looked like a bargain a couple years later. I'm just thinking Burnes is looking at Ohtani's numbers, and will see Yamo's soon, and he may demand the sky to extend. I do like him better than Monty and Snell, but I'm not sure I want to pay him significantly more plus lose a good prospect or two, as well.
-
Our plan C's are drying up. Our plan B's look less and less appealing, such as Burnes wanting a bundle for an extension. Is it better to be the Raiders East or the Rays North?
-
Sounds like a plan, along with signing Bauer and Clevinger.
-
If Burnes wants to be "blown away" by an extension, we might was well just sign him as a FA after 2024, or we should just "blow away" Yamo with an offer, or outbid everyone for Monty and or Snell. Fall back to getting one of Monty or Snell plus one from Imanaga, Stroman or Giolito and then spend big, again, next winter. It does not make sense to trade something valuable for the right to extend Burnes at today's FA value.
-
If they want Mata, giving him would ease the 26 man roster choices for opening day. (Hell, I'd give Mata and Walter for Dury and $2-3M)
-
Another third tier fall-back SP'er is off the boards. Flaherty to DET for $14M/1. Also, Burnes has stated he'd have to be "blown away" to sign and extension after a trade. (I'd scratch him off my wish list.)
-
This trade was assuming we do more, like signing Monty and maybe another pitcher and a 1 yr catcher or OF'er. Monty, Sandoval, Stroman, Drury, O'Neill and Garver looks like a pretty serious improvement.
