Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103,482

  • 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

  1. moonslav59
    They have a long history of taking our high-priced players off our hands- the good (Betts), the bad (AGon & Beckett) and the ugly (Crawford & Price.)
  2. moonslav59
    This is the issue that "justification" can be argued for or against, and not saying the trade cannot be justified. The trade was 100% justifiable, once the decision was made not to sign him.
  3. moonslav59
    Exactly. It was about choosing not to sign him. That was the choice to be debated. The choice was made not to do it, perhaps because Betts was saying no number would get him to sign, but that's not the point, either. Once it was decided he was not going to be signed, there is a ton of justification to trade him. That's the point.
  4. moonslav59
    Any scenario would have to involve the Dodgers.
  5. moonslav59
    God, I hope so.
  6. moonslav59
    All of them. LOL
  7. moonslav59
    So, once they decided not to sign Betts, they should have just gotten a comp pick, because there is no "justification" for trading him? The "justification" point should be made about the choice not to sign him. The trade had to be done, once they made the wrong choice not to extend him. (Also, it was also up to betts to agree to an extension.)
  8. moonslav59
    The Price signing was worse. My point is that a trade is the safer and best route, and I'm being told that it is not only a bad idea, but that my point is not even valid.
  9. moonslav59
    Indeed, and other GMs see this, too.
  10. moonslav59
    You assume Casas won't hit like April in September.
  11. moonslav59
    Who would you trade instead? Mayer? Anthony? Rafaela and Duran? Teel? Nobody wants to trade Casas or any of these guys, but choose one.
  12. moonslav59
    ...and nobody to trade for pitching.
  13. moonslav59
    Who isn't? It's just not so simple. It's riskier drafting pitchers highly. What do we do until that area is fixed, and once it is fixed, there will be a delay of 3-6 years before seeing results. In the mean time, we can keep signing David Prices or trade for pitching.
  14. moonslav59
    Trading your third best offensive player (maybe 4th) who sucks on D for your 2nd or third best pitcher is valid.
  15. moonslav59
    True. Some just seemed more okay with not doing anything than others.
  16. moonslav59
    How can trading for a pitcher not be a valid idea?
  17. moonslav59
    I think the plan is Urias and Reyes at 2B in 2024 with Yorke on the horizon.
  18. moonslav59
    Yes, several posters said that, and then they defended those statements by saying "We only had two pen games after the deadline."
  19. moonslav59
    I'm all for getting top pitchers through the farm, but that's not happening overnight. We are stacked with position players and need pitching. My suggestions are valid. They are not the only options, but it has been one area we have had continued success at doing. arguing we eed to do something we suck at instead, like signing big FA pitchers or drafting SP'ers in the first round, seems like a worse idea, to me.
  20. moonslav59
    Well said. I do think one argument many have been making is that drafting almost only everyday players, which we are good at, would allow us to trade some for top pitching. It's just that when you name specific ones, everybody gets their panties in a bunch. You have to choose the right ones to trade, and that means when their trade value is high. You look at where logjams are, and where the team needs are, when you make the choice on who to trade. I am all about farm building, and I'm not for mega prospect trades for SP'er, every year, but I do think once every 4-5 years is not only okay, but should be part of the plans, until we figure out how to develop great pitching, ourselves. (It seems we might be moving in the right direction in that area: Bello, Houck, Whitlock, Crawford, Wink, Murphy and some promising pitchers on the farm, right now.)
  21. moonslav59
    Not in my opinion. Once the choice was made about not re-signing him, the choice to trade him was a good one vs a comp pick after a QO offer refused.
  22. moonslav59
    Yes, that was my point. The problem is, none of those "SSs" are ready to play 3B at the MLB level, next year. That's why I asked about Story playing 3B.
  23. moonslav59
    He has had a few previous meltdowns, then came back. It's hard to tell, but you could be right. He used to be a SP'er, so it's not the IP, IMO.
  24. moonslav59
    The choice not to re-sign him was the mistake. The trade was just an aftermath of the actual bad choice made.
  25. moonslav59
    SEA also traded top prospects for Castillo.
×
×
  • Create New...