moonslav59
-
Posts
103,688 -
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
-
I think Bloom will spend big, at some point- maybe not this winter, but he almost has to, next winter.
-
Maybe he was forced to be someone he was not while in Tampa. If given a bigger budget there, maybe we'd have seen a "different" Bloom. I do think he has different tendencies than someone like DD, for sure.
-
That's for them to determine. Maybe they would not count any players with less than 1 year of team ownership. Just a thought to "compromise."
-
I certainly think what Old Red is saying could very well be this winter's plan, but I do think they will make a move, if they think the player is a long term fit and the money is reasonable. (I think Suzuki might fit that role.) I'm not sure I believe the Story rumors.
-
Could they come up with a threshold between $180-210M but with exceptions granted for keeping your own players?
-
Wanting to keep Devers long enough expresses a willingness to offer a 3+ year contract. Whether they offer enough to get him is another story. The point is about there being a firm commitment or a mandate not to sign anyone to more than 3 years. There seems to be some evidence they are willing to make 3+ year offers. Again, I am thinking they probably will not offer enough money to get any longer term players, this winter, except for MAYBE Suzuki, but I think it "might" happen.
-
I don't know, and neither do you, but I do think there is a good chance the rumors are correct, and I seriously doubt if they made an offer, it was for 1-2 years.
-
So, they might have offered Baez 3+ years knowing he'd say no, then kept that a secret from the public.
-
So did they lie when they said they wanted to keep Devers long term? It seems your interpretation of what they said at that "Gospel" press conference is at odds with other statements they made. Look, I'm not saying they will make a big signing. I'm thinking there is a good chance they don't. I'm not taking a position they will. I just said they "might," and you ask me for proof of why I believe it "might happen." I can't prove something might possibly happen. I ask again, do you really think there is NO chance we sign anyone for more than 2 years? If you think there is a 0.001% chance, is that a "might?"
-
I did not ask if you wanted Suzuki. I'm not sure he'd be a good signing either. Hell, I liked the Rusney signing. I never pretend to know more than even the worst GM the Sox have ever had. My question was- do you think there is a zero chance we offer or sign Suzuki to a 3 or more year deal? Yes or No.
-
Do you believe there is a 0% chance we sign Suzuki to 3+ years? 0% chance we even make a 3 or more year offer? BTW, if we do sign Suzuki to 3 or more years, you will not hear me say, "I told you so," because I never did.
-
Where do I even hint at knowing what we WILL do, let alone more than they do? I said there is a strong possibility we make no big moves. You are assuming things I am not saying-- again.
-
What Old Red is talking about was more about what Kennedy said months ago. How many times have you heard a GM say we are not looking to trade so and so, only to see that so and so traded days or weeks later? Look, I certainly see a strong possibility we make no big deals, this winter. We may extend Devers after the season starts, but even that is up in the air.
-
It's based on rumors we are a top contender for Suzuki, rumors we were in on Baez, rumors we offered ERod "multi years," and the fact that we have been big spenders for many years in a row, including last year. The problem with last year was that we had about $40M to spend and 10 slots to fill. This year, we have about the same amunt of money but only 4-6 slots to fill, so I'm thinking we may spend more due to less players needed with the same spending budget. I might be wrong. Do you really think there is a zero percent change we go 3+ years on Suzuki based an a ew comments made months ago by a couple top brass guys? For one thing, contexts change. The new CBA agreement may make it more (or less) likely we sign someone long nd large. Do I have to define what "might" means to me to see if it means something different to you?
-
I am not certain the Sox will "do something big," this winter, and I don't want them to, if it's the wrong signing. For example, I don't want us to go large and long on Story. I would like to see us get Suzuki, and maybe that is wishful thinking to believe we are even making a 3+ year offer, but I'm pretty sure we are, will or already did that. I'm guessing we made Baez a 3+ year offer but came up short. I have no evidence, and with him, I do wish we had gotten him. You act like I am saying I am sure we will sign someone long term, this winter. I am not sure, but I think we might, and Suzuki looks like the best bet. I do think eventually, most likely by spring of 2023, we will sign someone to 3+ years and big money- maybe Devers. Maybe the strategy will continue to be no large and long deals, but I think if we go that route, we will eventually see large and short deals or long and moderate deals.
-
Yes, but I think it goes beyond actual distance. O and D lines really have to work together in complicated and complimentary ways. A QB-WR relationship may be compared to a pitcher-catcher relationship, but I still see the QB-WR relationship as more like teamwork than the P-C one. Basketball is way ahead of baseball in teamwork.
-
GMs often say one thing and do another. It was reported they made ERod a "multi-year offer," but I guess that could have been just 2 years. It was also reported we were in on Baez and are currently in on Suzuki. It's hard to imagine being "in" with just a 1 or 2 year deal. I don't see it as wishful thinking. For one thing, I don't wish we sign someone to 3+ years, if I don't like the player. I like the idea of limiting long term contracts to only very deserving players, and I think that is the team strategy, right now. The reason we have not signed anyone for more than 3 years might be more about the amount of money than the years.
-
Yes, I did. 3 year deals don't have to be mega ones. I also don't take what big brass say as the gospel, either.
-
Yes, you are right. One could argue it would have been too expensive to keep everyone: Springer, Correa, Cole... I like the Bregman extension, too, but he did not have a great 2021.
-
It will happen. I was pretty sure it would happen, this winter, and maybe it still will, but I wonder...
-
It would be great, if he can stick at 2B, but if his hit tool becomes as great as it looks like it might, we can find a spot for him anywhere, even at DH, that will help the team.
-
I'm waiting for jacksonianmarch to say how these ranking are full of s***.
-
I seriously doubt Bloom & Co. see Correa as the one to splurge on.
-
While more people live in San Jose than either SF or Oakland, the SF-Oak metro area is almost twice the size of San Jose's, but yes, SF would say no.
-
I remember thinking, at the time, why not just give SF the "rights" to Oakland in exchange for giving up the San Jose market?
