Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    108,921

  • 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

  1. moonslav59
    Do what it takes. Front end load it, even if that encourages an opt out. Just get me… Devers forevers!
  2. moonslav59
    One thing to note: if the Rays win a ring, will their revenues go up significantly? I doubt it. That doesn’t mean that’s why they don’t spend big, even once, but they do make the occasional Charlie Morton signing.
  3. moonslav59
    Well said.
  4. moonslav59
    Two big reasons: 1. The QO scares some teams away from even talking about signing a QO FA. 2. Yes, he would get a multi year offer but maybe likes $18M/1 better than $40M/3. If he does well two years in a row he’ll make a ton next contract plus $18M
  5. moonslav59
    Sox prospects has him with one, and they have never put him on waivers, that I know of.
  6. moonslav59
    They care about winning. It’s obvious. The budget prevents rings but trading stars at just the right time is part of why they win more consistently than big spending Boston.
  7. moonslav59
    One problem is, we could bring Bogey back, even on a hometown discount and still see a decline at SS over the term of the deal, and I mean from year one. I don’t expect it, in fact I think he’ll do better next year, but who know? Who knows how Turner, Correa or Swanson will do either? Hell, I wanted Baez, last year! yikes!!!
  8. moonslav59
    Another big problem is, if Wacha and Nate accept their QO, we can only realistically improve, if both stay healthy and give us more IP without regression (well, maybe Wacha regresses as much as Nate progresses.).
  9. moonslav59
    One big problem is we may want to reset in 2024. The QO's would help us do that, and hopefully, some prospect arms will be proven by then.
  10. moonslav59
    Yes. I think they realized it would be a PR nightmare and a huge disruption to the team to ask him if he would waive the No Trade Clause. They might also be thinking they will try hard to extend him. (I just hope not at Devers' expense.)
  11. moonslav59
    He's still got 1,000 inning on that arm! LOL
  12. moonslav59
    It wouldnt let me edit '18 to '20.
  13. moonslav59
    To me, the 3 years Dugo gave us was worth the wasted 2020 season. I doubt Betts and a healthy Sale & ERod would have won us a ring in '18. Wong is gravy.
  14. moonslav59
    I agree, but it's $23.4 x 6.
  15. moonslav59
    I'd like to keep both, too, but unless I'm convince JH will open and keep open his wallet for the next 3-5 years, I don't see how it will work. If a reset is planned in the next 2-3 years, and remember, the penalties for year 3 are enormous, how can we field a competitive teams, unless the farm jolts us to prominence. Bogey + Devers will be $55M+ on the tax line. Add Sale and we're at $80M, or more than 1/3 the player budget on just 3 players- one who may not even be playing. Just taking 2023 and forgetting about future resets, how can it be done? Bringing back Bogey and Devers fills no holes. At best, we stay the same, and likely will get worse beyond 2023 at SS/3B. We'd have $25-30M to spend on SP, SP, SP, Closer, RP, RF, DH without even touching 1B or C, which are also question marks for 2023. It's impossible, unless and until JH changes his tune.
  16. moonslav59
    Well, Bogey had a no-trade clause, so that might have kept Bloom from doing what he preferred to do... or not.
  17. moonslav59
    Did the Sox really think seeing him for 2 months in 2022 was going to convince them to keep or not keep him at $26M/2? I'm 99% sure they take the options, despite not seeing one IP from Paxton. The injury he sustained is not long term.
  18. moonslav59
    Certainly a Sox GM worries about losing viewership and attendance revenue. Isn't that worrying about fan reaction to harsh rebuild moves? It seemed like there was quite an uproar over just dumping Vaz and not trading for the next Schwarber.
  19. moonslav59
    It seemed to me, some posters took issue with that term, and it was harsh. The thing is, you have even said, if we aren't going to extend Bogey, we should have traded him, and I agree, but when we do make a deal like the Betts one, the trade will be very unlikely one that pleases most fans-not just the "crybaby" ones. Most will likely take years to judge, properly, but the instant feeling will be anger or disgust. I felt angry when we traded Betts. Most did. Now, I see the deal was forced and necessary and don't think we could have done a significantly better deal. I remember, at the time, thinking I'd rather have Maeda than Downs & Wong or Graterol, and for a short while, that did look like a better deal, but I'm liking more and more of Wong with each passing day. 5 years of Dugo for a 60 game lost season of Betts seems fine, now. It's also helped me see the virtue in trading stars about to bolt going forward.
  20. moonslav59
    The Sox have the option on Paxton, not the other way around. I don't think they signed him for 2022, in the first place. The deal was for 2023 & 2024. I'm 99% sure the Sox take the $13M x2 option, and Paxton is with the Sox going forward.
  21. moonslav59
    Not totally. Too many cheap teams don't trade away stars at the right time. They also don't get the returns the Rays seem to get or know precisely when the time is right.
  22. moonslav59
    Yes, and I never said there was no upside to them. Nobody cared when we traded Slocumb, especially a few years later, but I do remember some griping when we traded David Wells, and we saw some when we traded Vaz, who IMO, was not coming back on an extension. .
  23. moonslav59
    Your points are true. They do comeback, when the team wins or gives the perception they can or will compete, but when the suck, revenue is down. It is a factor for most teams, less so for TBR.
  24. moonslav59
    I basically said this, after the deadline, but put it in words that offended some. I said something like, the Sox did not do what was in their best interests because of "crybaby fans."
  25. moonslav59
    And, that's why they chose that plan- or one reason, anyway. I'm one fan that wishes we'd go that way. It may suck to see stars go, but the Rays keep having new and exciting stars, seemingly every year. I want a sustainable system in place, and I know that does not have to depend on dumping players about to make too much money in time to get nice returns that may not show anything for years, or may be busts, I might add. The other thing the Rays seem to be experts at is dumping players right after their best career year and or right before they start declining steeply. Maybe because they've dumped so many good players, it just seems that way, but the list is long and goes way back. (Snell is but one example.)
×
×
  • Create New...