Jump to content
The Sox open a set against the Nats, join our game thread! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    104,787

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    130

 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 moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    That is different and more understandable and possible.
  2. moonslav59
    Not many deadline trades involve a ML player for a ML player. It's usually a ML player for a prospect or two.
  3. moonslav59
    If they could extend him without a no-trade clause, he may be worth more in trade than now.
  4. moonslav59
    That is very much their history. Recently, they did trade away Montgomery, but he was hardly a superstar. Teams like LA and Houston do let some stars go.
  5. moonslav59
    How is hitting bigtime on 33 to 50% of your first roiund picks evidence tanking does not work?
  6. moonslav59
    They admitted it.
  7. moonslav59
    Yes, if we are still in it, it makes it harder to justify a trade off to fans.
  8. moonslav59
    Good point. It makes me wonder, if Breslow may look to move many of these "stuff" guys for more power type young pitchers (prospects or not.)
  9. moonslav59
    Breslow may have a different idea about the types of pitchers we should have in the rotation and pen. I agree. He may want to change over some, and trading one or more may be high on his list. I hope his vision is a good one.
  10. moonslav59
    I think starting with $100M gives some teams some slack and planning headstart. Go to $110M year 2 and $120M year 3.
  11. moonslav59
    It was on MLBTR. "preliminary talks." https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/10/yankees-padres-have-had-preliminary-discussions-on-juan-soto.html
  12. moonslav59
    I can never agree that that Angels' strategy could ever make sense. I have said this before, but if we add 2-3 solid SP'ers who rate to pitch more than 150 IP, our pen will be greatly strengthened by keeping more of these guys in the pen: Whitlock, Houck, Crawford and Pivetta.
  13. moonslav59
    Getting the top pick was part of their strategy. I'm pretty sure of that. I do also think they viewed getting the 1st pick in the following rounds as a plus, too. It certainly was not a major reason they tanked, but it was a plus they valued when making the choice to tank. They clearly and purposely held back spending, so they could get better picks for more than 3 years. I think this statement is closer to the truth than saying they tanked for 3 first picks in the draft.
  14. moonslav59
    Just as bad was the Dermody start. BTW, by my count, we had 16 "pen games: started. We also had 23 GS by Crawford, who was not really on anyone's radar as a top 7-8 starter back in March. I think our rotation depth chart, last December, was... 1. Sale 2. Kluber 3. Paxton 4. Bello 5. Pivetta 6. Houck 7. Whitlock 8. Maybe even Mata and Walter before Crawford. 16 pen starts + 23 Crawford GS= 39 GS. That is close to 25% of starts from pitchers below our 7 slot in the depth chart.
  15. moonslav59
    I could definitely see us trading Dugo or Duran, but not both, I could see us trying to open up more playing time to Rafaela (RHB) and or Abreu (LHB). I see trading Jansen and Martin as an indicator of "punting" on 2024, because I doubt we can replace them, in kind, at the same cost. Would trading them force Houck and or Whitlock into one or both of those roles? Does Breslow try to walk the line and try to keep the perception we will try to compete in 2024 while dealing all or most one year players, which might also include Sale, someone you did not mention in this last post?
  16. moonslav59
    We could improve more slots on the 26 than I highlighted in RED, but I doubt we try to do it all in one winter. I doubt we even try to greatly improve all the ones in red. Most of the talk has centered on the rotation, and rightly so, but I can imagine a winter where we only add one SP'er and once again, pin our hopes that Bello & Sale hold down the 2-3 slots and someone from Crawford, Pivetta and Houck fill in the 4-5 slots. It's no secret I'd like to see us add 2 solid SP'ers and a decent #4 type, but in reality, hoping for just 2 solid SP'ers may be a pipedream. With the money we have to spend and still not go over the tax line, IMO, it should not be a pipedream.
  17. moonslav59
    I agree, but I know more about the specifics of the Astros "tank," due to living here and hearing what top brass was saying to fan through the "lean years." The Rays did it for a while, but it's harder to know if it was mostly about getting top draft picks, because they barely spent more, after they started winning. Their strategy is just spend as little as possible, but still try to win. It's hard to imagine teams like PIT and KC telling themselves, "let's not try to win." I'm sure they all look at OAK and TBR and think, let's be like them, but it's not easy to win without spending more. One thing to think about, if MLB imposed a min team budget of $100M, it would likely make it much harder for big spending teams to win, without going to absurd spending lengths, like the Mets tried. The Sox haven't been able to win with a constant budget over $200M.
  18. moonslav59
    They should have forced a team minimum budget that increased every year. If teams do not meet the rule, they could lose their revenue sharing, which to me, would "incentivize" those owners more than taking away draft picks or reducing pool money. I like the idea of trying to give worse teams a better chance to catch up, but only if they are legitimately trying to do so.
  19. moonslav59
    The Astros admitted to their fans they were waiting to stockpile young players and would spend big in a few years. That is "tanking." Then, they did what they promised.
  20. moonslav59
    Again, you chose just a 3 year stretch, when their tank was for longer than that, and having a higher pick in each round helped them get better. Also, I think getting a guy like Correa with your top pick, every 3 years, is not something I'd call a downside. Getting constant picks in the 10-20 slots don't even do that well.
  21. moonslav59
    Indeed, and there may be several reasons to not try to win. To me, the biggest reason is to not spend on the player salary budget, so they can make more money. Some teams do seem to want to do that but also compete, so they may value higher draft picks and signing pools more highly that those who don't seem to ever try to make the playoffs. Oak & TBR might be the best examples of the this. Some posters were suggesting we "tank" the end of the season to just move up a few slots in the draft, so it's not like the idea that it is not just about getting the top pick or 2 is not something new.
  22. moonslav59
    IMO, yes and yes. The Astros admitted it.
  23. moonslav59
    Getting the 3rd pick in every round is better than getting the 15th or 20th. I'm not sure the draft position is a major reason teams decide to not try to win. I'm not sure that is called tanking. I think the main reason teams decide not to try to win is about making more money. They appreciate the higher draft picks and more bonus pool money, but it's not the driving factor, IMO.
  24. moonslav59
    I know what people were talking about. Keep pretending you know what everyone wants to specifically talk about. Somehow your "Ted Talk" went from the hiring of Breslow to teams tanking to get the top pick, without anyone changing the direction of the flow of conversation. Magical!
  25. moonslav59
    Yanks-Padres have begun talks on a Juan Soto trade.
×
×
  • Create New...