moonslav59
-
Posts
108,914 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
162
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings
Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
I thought the 2022 tax line number for Paxton was $10M, according to cots. That's $6M for 2022 plus the $4M option in 2023, right? Is cots wrong, again? If not, why are we charged that $4M twice?
-
If I had to choose between those two offers, I'd go with Devers. Maybe he takes $300M/12 to lessen the AAV, and who knows, maybe he'll be a useful DH years 9-12. There is a top limit, however, and maybe both of those numbers are too much. Spending $500M on both seems impossible, and unwise. One might get this for $500M: $140M/6 Nimmo $140M/6 Swanson $70M/4 Diaz $60M/4 Contreras $30M/3 Eovaldi $30M/4 Wacha $30M/4 Fulmer
-
Like a blind squirrel climbing a broken clock...
-
The Tigers hired the Senior Director of Amateur Scouting from the Rays to be their assistant GM. If he was a key to their success on the farm, maybe the Sox missed an opportunity, here.
-
I wonder, if Heyman is right about there still being $100M gap between the Sox offer to Devers and what he wants, if we look to trade him. I do think $300M/10 is too steep, but maybe he’d take $270/12. I’m not sure the Sox offer that, either.
-
True nuff, but we are talking 2023.
-
Like Judge? I hope you guys break the bank to sign him and cripple your budget for many years.
-
It's damn good, but not a cinch.
-
Yes, the guy with a 96 ERA+ since 2017. He got paid more than Paxton's $4M option. That's why I listed him as a comp.
-
If we want to beef up our team OBP, next season, here are some of the OBP leaders in OBP since 2021 (400+ PAs): 3. Judge .400 9. Nimmo .380 12. Bogey .374 16. Reynolds .369 (Trade?) 19. Winker .367 (Trade?) 21. Correa .366 22. S Marte .365 (Trade?) 23. Brantley .365 25. J Abreu .365 26. Ohtani .364 34. Yelich .358 (Trade- hefty contract) 35. T Turner .358 40. Vogelbach .356 41. JD Davis .356 46. B Belt .355 47. J Bell .355 53. Cooper .352 58. Beni .348 63. Carpenter .346 65. JD Martinez .345 68. Conforto .344 71. Contreras .344 78. Segura .343 (Trade?)
-
Yes, I should have said last 3 years. Plus, I counted back 6 years on Paxton, starting from 2021. My bad.
-
I went back and added him: 591 Archer 93 ERA+ Same innings- but 20 less on ERA+.
-
Paxton's last 2 years have been a mess, but in his previous 4 seasons, he never pitched less than 120 innings and had an ERA+ of 116. Teams often sign players on hopes of recovery to form. They swung and missed twice on Paxton. It's easy to chose the sample size of 2 seasons to make a strongpoint against his worth being $4M/1, but one could go back 3, 4, 5 or 6 years and find supporting evidence he's worth the risk/gamble. Some similar or higher contract pitchers... 6 years IP 808 M perez 100 ERA+ 799 Bundy 90 ERA+ 699 Kluber 129 ERA+(281 IP last 4 years) 643 Boyd 96 ERA+ 591 Archer 93 ERA+ 590 Paxton 113 ERA+ (172 last 4 yrs) 425 Pineda 105 373 Smyly 95 343 Richards 99
-
One poster seems ready to prefer he bites into a Cyanide pill.
-
I get that, and if JH ever thinks we are close to another ring, he may bite that bullet.
-
I would not be thrilled having Paxton back, but at $4M/1, I think it's a decent low-risk gamble. Martin Perez was a good gamble. Archer & Hill, too. Were they "good money after bad?" BTW, I'd be just as happy, if paxton declines the deal and moves on.
-
Add Paxton at $10M/1 to that list. Richards $9M Kluber $8M
-
Pitching is certainly a strength and should be, next year, too. Here are the OPS Against number by Yankee pitchers, listed in order of most PAs Against: .650 Cole 793 PAs against .713 Taillon 728 .554 Cortes 615 .670 Montgomery 469 (Traded away) .616 Severino 405 .714 German 298 .547 Holmes 260 .721 Luetge 251 .648 Schmidt 236 .534 Peralta 223 .599 Loasisiga 203 .548 King 199 .838 Montas 185 .525 Marinaccio 181 .654 Chapman 160 .741 Castro 131 .656 Abreu 108 .607 Trivino 93 For reference, here are the Sox numbers: .753 Pivetta 773 .747 Hill 526 .693 Wacha 515 .754 Eovaldi 460 .794 Crawford 334 .852 Wink 316 .639 Whitlock 311 .804 Bello 268 .793 Brasier 263 .577 Schreiber 257 .743 Davis 254 .608 Houck 247 .664 Sawamura 221 .664 Strahm 193 .676 Barnes 176 .763 Danish 173 .744 Diekman 171 (Traded away) .845 Ort 134 .831 Robles 111
-
He does look pretty promising as a "late bloomer," but 2022 could easily just be an outlier season. Same with Holmes in the pen, who started to show signs of flukiness, late in the season. They both had a decent 2021 to add to their records, but is that enough to anoint them sure best for 2023? I'm not so sure about Sevy being back to ace status, either. Taillon might outpitch him in '23, assuming good health.
-
I'd be surprised, but I'd also feel like he'd be a promising player for only $4M. We paid $10M for Richards, 2 years ago and $6M for Paxton, last year (with the $4M option counting on the 2022 tax line.) I'm not confident he'll produce for us, but I think it's a good gamble at that low cost. We signed Diekman to $8M/2. This looks better, to me.
-
...and he will likely get more than $4M/1.
-
I get it. I don't get why you think we are miserable, but I've come to accept your errant positions are just part of what this site is full of.
-
We gave him $10M after a similar previous record. I think he'd get more than $4M/1 on the FA market, assuming he is healthy, now.
-
Miserable? You must be talking to the scarecrows you constructed.
-
While true, we had a golden opportunity to get under at the deadline and chose not to. That is on Bloom and upper management. I understand the pressure to appear to be staying competitive for the fans and consumers, but they just made that more difficult for 2023 and 2014 by not getting under the line. The hear and now won over the future at the deadline, while it seemed obvious, to me anyway, this was not "the year."
